DuggE4

John Banks, you clearly haven't driven the i-vtec car for long enough to really appreciate its ability. To say it doesn't give you any confidence when overtaking is astonishing. For the other guy who reckons a standard 2.0 mondeo will keep up with a CTR is clearly misguided. I've had a 2.0 mondeo and I'm telling you there is no way its going to keep up with a CTR. To say the CTR has nothing under 6000 rpm is also a load of sphericals. But then I don't expect anything less from the narrow minded torque turbo brigade...............every thread like this we have the same old arguments from the same old people. The best thing people can do is drive it, VTEC is a bit like sex, u either get it or u don't :O)

bluenose172

iTrader: (2)

LCR, not in the same league, please, what league do you think your CTR is in exactly!? I too have access to a LCR and the handling takes a bit of getting used to when coming from the 172, however the grip levels are very similar. Never had a day of problems with it either, also no annoying rattles!

I'm not against the CTR by any matter of means, but really there is nothing to choose from between the two. Personal preference would sway me towards the LCR, because of its looks and tunability!

bluenose172

iTrader: (2)

John,

Those power and torque figures look remarkably like my old Laguna V6's!? I know for a fact that a CTR would have struggled against that thing above 100, it pulled at 120 the same as it did at 80!

golfliam

lol not in the same league - sorry but i'd rather have something with the potential of the cupra anyday - so its got a bit softer suspension - easy to adjust - the thing is ounce you get a bit bored with the standard power for £1000 you can transform it into something harder and faster easily - big part of the fun of owning a car.... what can u do to a CTR to transform it for £1000
when u get used to the massive 197 bhp and 144 lbs of torque
I got used to 200 then 235 bhp within weeks of getting them done

As for VW reliability - well i think they get better with age
100,000 miles 321 bhp no problem...

john banks

I've never owned a Honda and doubt I ever will with their engine philosophy.

I drove a CTR on a road I know well and used all the revs available at full throttle, the way you guys describe CTRs it sounds like there must have been a brick under the throttle pedal LOL, it is not exactly difficult to assess a car's straight line performance, just put it in 2nd gear out of a corner and don't change up until the red line, repeat in 3rd. Nice noise, not bad at high RPM, gutless as **** in the midrange - as others said just like any 2 litre. I was bracing myself for the fear of the VTEC surge and it was pish. So I am in a position to compare it to my crappy V6 repmobile which eats it for breakfast in the midrange and my Scooby from 215 to 406 BHP. It was very disappointing until 6000 RPM when it felt like my Pug does (which I suppose is about right since it is about the same power as the V6). Not on the same planet as a classic shape unmodded Scooby I am afraid. Loads of things could equal a WRX, it is not really a performance benchmark by any stretch of the imagination, so not really worthy of comparison.

Cosworth427

================================================== ================
I am not even thinking of 400 BHP here... only 194 BHP in a heavier car but with 197lbft - when soggy old repmobiles worth buttons get the hop on CTRs there is something wrong. Being caught with your pants down in a CTR can easily happen from yawnfully mundane opposition.

Worse still, on driving they give you no confidence for overtakes which you would not think twice about in something with real torque.
================================================== ================



And how many natural aspirated V6's cars with the same horsepower out accelerate a Civic Type-R? You'll need a V6 Clio, or even an NSX to do that.

That Civic makes atleast 80% of its maximum power for a considerable RPM range, and gear to gear, (2nd - 3rd, 3rd - 4th etc) your misconceptions about that 2.0 litre being gutless simply doesnt matter.

As I said before, alot of people here like make negative comments on things based on what they have just read (fact, misconception or total BS.), rather than have full experience of it. You're just another example of that.

Horsepower determines in-gear acceleration, not maximum crank torque. If you can't understand the simple math behind engine performance perhaps you shouldn't be selling performance upgrades, because when it comes to performance, you don't seem to know what you are talking about.



[Edited by Cosworth427 - 7/21/2003 3:02:45 PM]

[Edited by Cosworth427 - 7/21/2003 5:05:22 PM]

DuggE4

yeah right of course Honda no nothing about engines............talk about biased beyond belief....kind of proves the point about the narrow minded, biased clap trap some people speak here....

Plantie

Nicely put Mr Cosworth

Paul_M

I reckon there's some biased crap coming from both directions here - I never once stated that a Mondeo will keep up with a CTR when they're both at full pelt, but that there will be very little difference between them at low-mid RPMs when driving around town.

Can't speak for the rest of you but I seldom take the car over 3500 RPM in town let alone 6000. There are quite a lot of steep hills around where I live, all in the 30 limits and driving a torquey car around here is far easier than a gutless one (and I'm talking about cars like standard Mondeos here which I drive regularly) cos the torquey one sails up the hills on part throttle whereas lesser engines need to be wound up with the foot to the floor. Driving around these parts and with the speed limits is ideal for a modern diesel, and I'm not too full of bravado to admit it. The gutless repmobile Mondeo diesel's 330Nm torque comes in handy and it's instantly noticable and very nice when driving - unfortunately it's crap on the open road which is why I'm not interested in having one.

The statement about "horsepower determines acceleration" is of course entirely true but highlights my point perfectly - everyone has their own driving style but I personally don't keep the engine revs around 6500RPM or whatever as much as possible just so I'm at peak horsepower. In fact I'd guess I use that part of the powerband less than 10% of the time the engine's running simply because there isn't the opportunity to thrash the car all the time when driving on public roads. Funnily enough if you compare two cars at a particular RPM (say 3000) the simple maths will tell you that the one with more torque at that point will have proportionally more BHP as well. Talk in whatever terms you want but if you're going to drive the car throughout the rev range you might as well consider the output throughout that range and the LCR and WRX will have significantly more torque *and* BHP in the mid-range than the CTR, even if peak BHP figures are similar.

I am in no way saying the CTR is a bad car or has a bad engine etc... it seems my opinions are taken out of context as usual on here. Yes I fully agree it will drive like a normal 2.0 up to say 6000RPM and that was the very point of my post - people are blinded by the three magic letters "BHP" so as soon as they read that a particular car has 200 or 300 or whatever BHP then it must be a really gutsy engine etc. The way an engine develops power can vary massively and it depends a lot on how you drive the car what will suit you. Looking solely at peak BHP is very short-sighted, as is looking solely at peak torque (otherwise we'd all be driving a 330Cd).

One last thought - ever wonder why those normally aspirated 150BHP/litre motorbike engines like the Yamaha R1's aren't used in cars? Simple answer, 80lb/ft torque (even that probably doesn't come in until say 4000RPM where it produces a whopping 35BHP - peak torque is at 8500PRM and peak power at 10,000) means that pulling the weight of a car and up to 5 occupants is going to be tough work keeping the engine revving high to get the power outta it, and it will guzzle the fuel into the bargain revving it so high all the time. With a bike there's so little weight that there's still plenty of torque to get it through the low revs and once you get it spinning the thing will absolutely fly due to power to weight as we all know. A lot of touring bikes which are designed to be a much more relaxed ride trade off a lot of that peak BHP for more torque though.

Mate had a Gixxer750 which absolutely flew, traded it in for a XJR(?) 1300 sport-tourer which has less power and was slower than the gixxer but more torque at lower RPM both he and his mate who has an R1 say it's a much better ride for cruising around in and still plenty fast compared to most machines. Wouldn't get near the Gixxer or R1 on track or round challenging back roads. Was he crazy for sacrificing the BHP of the GSX-R? I wouldn't say so - it suits him fine even if I'd take the Gixxer!

Bottom line is let's all keep an open mind, horses for courses Gawd I'm bored just now to have typed all that

[Edited by Paul_M - 7/22/2003 4:09:45 AM]

Type R

If a CTR is slow what is a WRX?

My old 1.6 CTR out dragged many Scoobs etc, and that had less torque than the K20, and really didnt have a lot below 6000revs.

I don't like the EP3, bread van looks, lack lustre steering, and needs an LSD, but for £16995 new you get what you pay for, it goes well, has a fantastic gear position even if the gearing is wrong IMHO, very neutral handling, and sold bucket loads.

I never considered an EP3 on selling my EK9, but then again, took an STI7 with PPP out and well, felt like a passenger, and no way could live with the fuel bills, RWD is the awesome and won't be going back.

ADL-ATR

I have a ATR and I agree that if you are crusing at 4-5k revs and someone tries it on the VTEC cannot respond in which ever gear you are in. However, once in the Zone in the ATR all you need do it accelerate up to the limiter and then next gear is back at the beginning of the VTEC in this case 5800 rpm. So from 1-5th and a long private road quite rapid progress is made.
The fabled jeckel and hyde behavior of the VTEC is only detectable when going from Non-Vtec to Vtec in which ever gear you are in.
When accelerating constantly you don't feel the extra kick because you have been using the VTEC in all the previous gears and nothing else.
Having not driven the CTR I am not going to comment on the them, only on the Honda engine which is first class, economy when you want it and performace when you want it, perfect for todays rather clutered roads!
A friend has one and the only thing I think honda need to add to the CTR is LSD.

john banks

Some V6 repmobiles with similar power but more weight can maintain station with a CTR on a real road in many situations because the CTR is easily caught outside its power band. In reality the lead that is gained can be difficult to make up. There are crappy French repmobiles that are within 0.1 secs of a CTR 0-60 despite higher weight. They are far easier to launch, and a good launch can be had at 3000-4000 RPM.

People rarely change into first gear to pull out of corners because in most cars it is rather difficult due to lack of synchros on 1st, but as a skilled driver who was driving a car I was mapping last night could tell you, a turbo that does not push until 3800 RPM in 2nd gear was actually a pain in the neck out of roundabouts/tight corners. 1000 RPM in spool up was all the difference between getting out that corner explosively or waiting for the boost to come in.

No single peak measurement of torque or power can tell you what the acceleration in the real world is going to be. Knowing the torque or power at a given RPM, the weight, the gearing, the frontal area and drag will give you an idea.

The "power sells cars torque wins races" adage still holds value IMHO.

Too many people talk up the CTR to such a point (like whipping P1s etc) that is it boring when you then drive one. Everyone says when there is a bad report on a CTR that it must have been a bad one or anyone that has said it is torqueless has not driven one. The car or the excuses don't do it for me I am afraid.

Diablo

Which "crappy french repmobiles" will do zero to 60 in 6 and a bit seconds John?

Just curious

I accept that on the roads there is little to choose, but then, the same argument applies to the real world differences between, say, a Vectra GSi and a Classic. Lots on paper, less on the road.

D

NACRO

Maybe he meant "crappy French superminis" instead?

Personally I like "crappy French superminis", having owned a 205GTI.

john banks

You will laugh your head off, but:
Peugeot 406 V6 0-60 6.9 http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/evo_dat...rtssaloons.php

I have one which is virtually worthless given the present car market. Something that can't get away from one would not interest me as a "performance" car.

At the end of the day the whole VTEC vs cubes/boost thing has been done to death, it really depends on whether it is your "thing". I tried one with a view to Scooby replacement.

The French do Superminis well, they should steer clear of saloons LOL.

[Edited by john banks - 7/22/2003 1:40:13 PM]

NACRO

Good lord that is quick for a 406- I've had the 1.8 and 2.0 Petrol versions as company hacks before and they were slugs.

Diablo

LOL yeah, I'm in shock too.

Whats funnier is the 150 top speed - faster than a UK classic or WRX...hehehe....

SO I guess they're of no interest to you either..LOL...

john banks

Nah, top speed is only 143, PWR is 150 No I wouldn't buy a WRX either

juan

still trying huh coz?

Diablo

Cosworth427

================================================== =================
"Some V6 repmobiles with similar power but more weight can maintain station with a CTR on a real road in many situations because the CTR is easily caught outside its power band. In reality the lead that is gained can be difficult to make up. There are crappy French repmobiles that are within 0.1 secs of a CTR 0-60 despite higher weight. They are far easier to launch, and a good launch can be had at 3000-4000 RPM."
================================================== =================

How many times do I have to repeat this? The CTR, S2000, Integra-R, and NSX all make atleast 80-90% of total power for a wide RPM range. I've posted dynos of some of these cars before, why can't they spend 5 minutes out of their 6 hours a day on scoobynet and read the damn thing? Juan, you should pay attention to this too.

The damn torque curves of all those cars are flat, especially as RPMs climb. That means usable low end torque and high end HP for best possible acceleration. Race cars use higher RPM's for a given displacement, because that's where maximum acceleration is. An inline-4 S2000 will be quicker between 6000 - 9000 redline because that's where maximum acceleration is. An 8 litre Viper will accelerate best between 4000 - 6000 RPM redline, because *that's* where maximum acceleration is.

Big engines, small engines, the bottom line is, you can *catch* any car outside it's powerband, there are no exceptions.

=================================================
"People rarely change into first gear to pull out of corners because in most cars it is rather difficult due to lack of synchros on 1st, but as a skilled driver who was driving a car I was mapping last night could tell you, a turbo that does not push until 3800 RPM in 2nd gear was actually a pain in the neck out of roundabouts/tight corners. 1000 RPM in spool up was all the difference between getting out that corner explosively or waiting for the boost to come in."
=================================================

My old BMW 318i makes less torque and power and weighs more than any Type-R, and I don't have problems getting out of roundabouts. So quit using turbocharged cars as some kind of "real world" example that a natural aspirated Type-R can't accelerate!




================================================== =================
"No single peak measurement of torque or power can tell you what the acceleration in the real world is going to be. Knowing the torque or power at a given RPM, the weight, the gearing, the frontal area and drag will give you an idea."
================================================== =================

So why do you use the 406 V6 & CTR's peak torque as some kind of performance indicator to back up your claim that the CTR can't accelerate? I said earlier in this post and a few times before that the torque curve of a CTR is flat through the vast majority of the RPM range. There are no high peaks or sharp roll off at all. For someone who makes a living on selling performance upgrades, you should know how to read a dyno graph.



================================================== =================
The "power sells cars torque wins races" adage still holds value IMHO."
================================================== =================

Go tell that to many track enthusiasts who race with low displacement track cars. Go tell that to every modern F1 team who is limited to 3.0 litres, pushing 800+ HP. Go tell that to BMW when they developed the E46 M3, why didn't they just use the inline-6 diesel if peak crank torque makes the real difference in performance?



================================================== =================
"Too many people talk up the CTR to such a point (like whipping P1s etc) that is it boring when you then drive one. Everyone says when there is a bad report on a CTR that it must have been a bad one or anyone that has said it is torqueless has not driven one. The car or the excuses don't do it for me I am afraid."
================================================== ================

I'm not talking up the CTR. And I don't enjoy sitting at my desk debating with narrowminded idiots on the internet, but it annoys me when people like yourself try to form an opinion when it's not even based on any decisive facts. You can claim you driven a CTR all you want, but being this is the internet and that your opinions clearly argues with everything small displacement performance cars have acheived, I call your bluff.

I could go online an claim the Earth is still flat, because I in the "real world" perceive that the ground I stand on is flat. But there are thousands of facts out there that prove me wrong. The same could be said about you and your claims.

MooseRacer

I've not a lot to add to Cosworth's points, bar this:

When you're revving a CTR at 6000rpm, you are not 'thrashing' it, you are at just over 70% of it's available rev-range. Percentage wise that is similar to doing 4500rpm in a car red-lined at 6500rpm. Would that be classed as thrashing it? I think not.

Horses for courses, each to their own etc, but this does seem hard to comprehend to some on here used to the crudeness of a turbo-charged engine.

Jerry*

Take your point moose...

I think what people get at when they say "thrashing it" is that you have to get the revs/noise levels up quite high (by most cars standards) to get the better power output... having to do that all the time to get the performance you'd expect from this kind of car can get a little tiresome in some peoples minds..

Personally I'm not a fan of the CTR, but you have to respect the wonderful engines that Honda put in their performance cars. If I didn't want to rev the engine high to get the best performance out of the car then I wouldn't buy one in the first place.. its whatever is your thing at the end of the day...

john banks

The good thing with Honda engines is that they stay together running high revs.

It is torque not power That sort of torque spread is not abnormal on a modern engine. It doesn't mean it accelerates at all remarkably. The actual torque that small NA engines ever get anywhere in the rev range it what makes them boring.

Trouble getting out of a roundabout LOL. Anything will pull itself out of a roundabout, but with explosive accelertaion in the midrange it does not happen with small normally aspirated engines.

Competition limits on capacity and supercharging are irrelevant. As are rev limits comparing diesels with petrol engines.

Try datalogging what rev range you can use on a twisty back road if you have the facility available to you. You will find that the time you spend at high RPM is far less than you think. You remember those moments because that is when you were caning it. Perhaps you should consider area under the power curve weighted to the time spent at each RPM zone, and IMHO midrange torque is king in road use.

A powerband for the last quarter of the rev range like a CTR has is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

We'll have to differ on opinion - you obviously like VTEC power delivery, I do not. That makes neither of us imbeciles as you suggest.

Dul

I have some experience with a CTR and despite I did not feel the boost of a turbo engine (at low rev) this car is very very smooth at low rev. I could drive easily at 60km/h in 6th and then accelerate. The engine will cope with it. Of course you will not feel any kick but it goes well. I do not know if any other 2 litter atmospheric car can do it better. Personally I do not really understand why people say that this car has no torque. I guess we are all biased with his power figure but again it’s only a 1998cc engine. If you compare the torque figure of this engine, it is as good as most of any engines with the same size. Now where Honda is very good is that engine can deliver about 90% of its max torque at 3’000 rmp and ~80% at 2’000 rmp and can still rev until 8’300.

To finalize, I personally prefer “playing” with the gear stick to find the last availability of power. It is really more involving, sportier and funnier to drive than any low torque (diesel) car. And at the end its performance is as good as any ~200HP cars. (With the same weight)

Well, it is a matter of personal taste and choice anyway.

john banks

%maximum torque by RPM is meaningless if the maximum torque is hopeless as is a sub 8000 RPM rev limiter. Start talking 10000 RPM plus red lines or sub 1000kg and it gets interesting on a 2.0 NA. My recently removed but still working standard internals Scooby 2.0 engine had only 52% of maximum torque at 3000 RPM. The fact that it makes as much wheel power at 3700 RPM as a CTR engine ever does is clearly irrelevant

But then I shouldn't be tuning cars because clearly I am clueless about torqueless engines

[Edited by john banks - 7/22/2003 4:49:38 PM]

Cosworth427

================================================== =================
"Trouble getting out of a roundabout LOL. Anything will pull itself out of a roundabout, but with explosive accelertaion in the midrange it does not happen with small normally aspirated engines."
================================================== =================

???? No, your roundabout example was a cheap shot made at the Civic-R by trying to relate it's alleged lack of performance to turbo lag experienced by one of your cars. Of course the CTR won't offer "explosive" acceleration, not to the level of a TVR or a 911 Turbo. The damned point is you fail to grasp or see reason that the CTR in relative terms *is* quick for the power it makes, you just can't accept that.

1200 kg, 200 horsepower and a flat torque curve, FWD yet it still out accelerates many 200 HP RWD 6 cylinder cars. Get over it.

================================================== ================ "It is torque not power That sort of torque spread is not abnormal on a modern engine. It doesn't mean it accelerates at all remarkably. The actual torque that small NA engines ever get anywhere in the rev range it what makes them boring."
================================================== =================

Dude, just LOOK at the dyno graph for the CTR in the URL below. Find me a natural aspirated engine that creates above 140 lbs/ft of torque from 2500 RPM all the way to redline. How many 2.0 litre engines are able to switch cam profiles to get that consistent levels of torque through that wide range?

Before any kind of VTEC system was around, anyone who wanted extra power would adopt aggressive cam grinds. Race cams being the ultimate, giving loads of extra power, but virually no drivability on the street. Since the Integra-R hit the roads, or even the older CRX's, you can have race/aggressive cam AND street cam all in one, giving you the damn flexibility to enjoy both sides of a track orientated street car.

How many other cars offered anyone that?

Even big turbocharged cars benefit from vaiable cams.
A 3.0 litre Supra Twin Turbo with an aftermarket cam of just 9 mm intake lift is enough to give it sh1tty idle, Supras are seldom known to lack torque! Hell, even Porsche had to use clever VarioCam to permit the use of 10 mm lift on their road going 996 Turbo and GT2. Again, those cars are never considered to lack any torque, but PORSCHE STILL USED VARIABLE CAMS.

================================================== ================
"My recently removed but still working standard internals Scooby 2.0 engine had only 52% of maximum torque at 3000 RPM. The fact that it makes as much wheel power at 3700 RPM as a CTR engine ever does is clearly irrelevant

But then I shouldn't be tuning cars because clearly I am clueless about torqueless engines"
================================================== ================

What has the extra horsepower & torque from forced induction have to do with the natural aspirated Civic? Just take a look at the dyno graph...

....but please take your head out of your a** first.




Civic Type-R Dyno chart URL: http://www.honda.co.jp/CIVICTYPE-R/engine/index.html



[Edited by Cosworth427 - 7/22/2003 5:56:49 PM]

john banks

VTEC is brilliant, I have no qualms about the shape of the torque curve and how much specific torque it delivers, all the best NA engines have some usually inferior variation and there is nothing to stop the same being applied to forced motors.

What I am trying to get across is that I think 2 litres without forced induction on a 1200kg car is uninteresting VTEC or not. I find a larger capacity engine making the same power a more satisfying drive.

Your insults will not change my opinion, and it seems I will not change your inability to separate your "facts" from others opinions and preferences. And you will keep waving the dyno charts I have seen previously at me until you think I'll agree with you. I won't Live with it. And try a motor with real torque

I would far sooner drive a VAG 1.8T motor making the same power than a VTEC.

VTEC is in competition with forced motors so it is very relevant to the original thread.

[Edited by john banks - 7/22/2003 6:02:32 PM]

Cosworth427

================================================== =================
"VTEC is brilliant, I have no qualms about the shape of the torque curve and how much specific torque it delivers, all the best NA engines have some usually inferior variation and there is nothing to stop the same being applied to forced motors.

What I am trying to get across is that I think 2 litres without forced induction on a 1200kg car is uninteresting VTEC or not. I find a larger capacity engine making the same power a more satisfying drive.

Your insults will not change my opinion, and it seems I will not change your inability to separate your "facts" from others opinions and preferences. And you will keep waving the dyno charts I have seen previously at me until you think I'll agree with you. I won't Live with it. And try a motor with real torque"
================================================== =================




In other words you realised that every opinion you tried to pass out as fact did not fit in with the information I've given you, so now you try to re-package what you mean't as personal "preference" instead.

Talk about covering your own a$$.







[Edited by Cosworth427 - 7/22/2003 6:02:19 PM]

john banks

Disappointed you see it that way. My bottom line is that VTEC is not a subsitute for cubes/boost as I have said all along. My first statement IIRC was that they have very disappointing torque FOR THEIR POWER OUTPUT.