Rich D

iTrader: (12)

You don't even need VTEC or any other gimmicks...

My old car >>>


(*note - all readings @ wheels)



That is for a factory standard Peugeot 306 Rallye, with no variable valve timing, no fancy technology, it's just a tuned normally aspirated 2.0 16v engine with a nice wide & pretty flat torque curve.

It had loads of useable power & torque all through the rev range and was in total contrast to the "peaky" 106 GTi that I'd had in the past.

Remember those figures on that graph are measures @ wheels, so you need to subtract the losses (Peugeot quote 16%) to get the readings @ fly. Peak power equates to 169bhp @ fly in this case.

john banks

It would benefit from VVT at the top though so that you could rev it to 8000 RPM without the power dipping off. Then you could run shorter gearing and have the same speed in each gear. The next problem would be a French engine handling the forces involved of running 100 BHP/litre and revving to 8000 It would probably be more sympathetic to the motor to boost it to say 6 PSI and drop the compression a bit.

[Edited by john banks - 7/22/2003 6:30:19 PM]

Rich D

iTrader: (12)

Why do I need to rev it to 8000rpm though?!

It could run the 1/4 mile in 14.83secs @ 93mph like that, without having to rev the nuts off it!


To get the power & torque curves to keep going to higher revs without dropping off is just a case of improving the breathing though and they respond well to it.

I fitted a new Peugeot Sport Group N replacment element costing a mere £15 +VAT straight after that run and stuck it back on the rollers, where it gained another +9bhp @ wheels and a rise in power & torque across the rev range.


All I was doing here though was pointing out that it is not just VTEC (or VVT) engines that can produce a flat torque curve and this old engine design (worked over Mi16 lump) still does a very good job!

DuggE4

What a load of class arguments................:O)

Love a good discussion!

I'd contribute on the technical side but its all gone way above my head!!

Still love a VTEC banshee scream....hehehe

john banks

Nice gain Rich from such a small breathing mod.

Rich D

iTrader: (12)

Yeah, I was more than a little surprised!!!

Just goes to show how restricitive the standard item actually is.


The GTi-6/Rallye seems to respond quite well to simple mods like this, so a filter, zorst & de-cat can give a decent improvement for just a few hundred quid.

Dul

Just for info, these 2 below cars figures from the same magazine.
Same engine size, same max torque, different power, same car weight but different performance...

306S16 CTR
Power [ch] 167 6'500 200 7'400
Torque [Nm] 196 5'500 196 5'900
max rev 7'300 8'300
Car weight [kg] 1'190 1'210
Max speed [km/h] 216 227
0 - 400 m 15.9 15.1
0 - 1000 m 28.9 27.4
50 km/h in 4th to 400m 15.5 15.2
50 km/h in 4th to 1'000m 29.0 28.0
80 km/h - 120 km/h in 5th/6th 10.5/13.7 9.3/12.0
80 km/h - 150 km/h in 5th/6th 18.6/25.7 16.9/22.6

Well, I love the Peugeot (I used to own a 306GTI) but I guess it shows a bit the improvement and the performance of the Honda's engineers...

MooseRacer

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



Now that I really cannot understand.

Cosworth427

================================================== ====================
"That is for a factory standard Peugeot 306 Rallye, with no variable valve timing, no fancy technology, it's just a tuned normally aspirated 2.0 16v engine with a nice wide & pretty flat torque curve."
================================================== ====================



No variable valve timing, no fancy technology, and...no 200 HP neither. So have you really answered my challenge at all???

CTR adopts conservative street AND race cam, giving ATLEAST 140 lb/ft of torque from 2500 RPM ALL THE WAY UNTIL REDLINE (8000+ RPM).

Compare your dyno graph to the CTR, it proves my point about the compromise with single cams. Your 306 is making good torque levels, but a steep roll off as wide a 1000 RPM starting @ 5500 RPM. The dyno on the CTR doesn't have that steep roll off, thanks to the aggressive cam grind.

This thread is done. Just because I defend the CTR, it suddenly makes me an anti-displacement rycer. When I defended cars with big engines against some turbo heads in here in the past, I get labeled opposite. You people don't like my attitude, or disapointed in my responses, TOUGH. Make a bad opinion, and you get a bad reaction, its as simple as that, kids.

Paul_M

There are a lot of well informed people commenting in this thread, all with differing opinions, which proves that we all have different expectations and driving styles meaning one man's dream machine is a tiresome drive to another.

There are people who would take an engine like the VAG V10 diesel over any other engine in the price range and not just for the reasons of economy. The simple fact is that a lot of people would prefer the masses of torque rather than top-end power, but of course that would make them a narrowminded idiot with their head up their a$$ for daring to differ with what Mr Cosworth427 defines as a good engine.

While I'm not disputing that you might have good technical knowledge, IMO someone who puts across their argument by calling everyone who disagrees an idiot etc does not help the respectability of their opinion one bit. In fact if you were arguing about something I knew nothing about I'd be inclined to think that the person throwing insults around is the one spouting the crap since people in the know generally don't have to resort to personal insults.

We live in the real world guys, as much as some of you might not like it there will always be people with differing opinions and criteria to your own and sometimes you just have to agree to disagree. Any chance that we could stick to opinions about the subject matter rather than personal insults, and if you can't manage that I have to wonder why you continue to participate in a thread with people who are all significantly below your own IQ level by your own assertion?

Sheepsplitter

I have a WRX STI4 with 360BHP.
I have a Civic Type-R with 197BHP.
I drive the Scooby at the weekend and use the Civic for commuting.
Or at least that was the plan.
The Civic is a lot of fun to drive and doesn't suffer from the 'no torque' that people on here are claiming. Throttle response is much better than any Subaru I ever drove.
The car isn't as quick as the Scooby, but it was never intended to be.
I usually end up tossing a coin to see which car to take out as I love them both, but the Scooby doesn't love my wallet as much!
Here's some facts(some my views):-

STi4 CTR
BHP 360 197
Cost £28K + mods £17K
Service Interval 7500miles 12000miles
Normal service cost £300-400 £123
Fun factor (my view) 10/10 9.5/10
Build Quality 6/10 10/10
Engine response 7/10 10/10
Engine performance 10/10 8/10
Paint finish 5/10 10/10
Theavability 2/10 7/10 (low scores are bad )


Remember these are my views, so don't flame me if you disagree.

Paul_M

You idiot, what an imbecile... how dare you disagree with my opinion, take your head outta your a$$

Seriously though a valid and very fair comparison and of course you're entirely entitled to your opinions whether you hate one car and love the other or love both etc.

PS I'm sure you're in the ideal position to state that the way both cars deliver their power is very different (yours maybe less so since your STi is probably more about top-end than a standard UK Impreza would be but the point is still valid), and in that respect would you agree it's easy to see why one driver could much prefer one over the other depending on their driving style? Not making one "better" than the other necessarily, just different.

[Edited by Paul_M - 7/22/2003 10:21:12 PM]

Sheepsplitter

Paul_M: Your right, it's very much horses for courses.
I used to prefer the Scooby power delivery, but now I'm not so sure. I like having to work for my performance almost as much as having it handed on a plate.
The thing is anyone can drive a Scooby and fast, to get the best out of the CTR takes a little more skill. I saw a replay of 5th Gear on Sky the other night and Tiff was punting a CTR around a track, he loves them, on the other hand Clarkson hates them. It's all a matter of pesonal choice.
I have must be quite lucky in that I love'em both :-)

S.B.

What colour ctr?

Sheepsplitter

Black

S.B.

10/10 for black now you are having a laugh....

Veracocha

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



Now that I really cannot understand."

I had the S3 1.8T running about 265bhp and same torque and it would easily out accelerate a CTR - Revo code allows the engine to give good power from 2000rpm through to 6600rpm and throttle response is ok. Fuel economy is 30+MPG like the CTR but 0-60 is 5.5 and 0-100 14 seconds dead.

Perhaps that would help you understand a bit better?

Having said that I accept that this is with mods so is a bit unfair but most S3 owners have this and it is cheap and reliable.

I have nothing but respect for the CTR because it is a great car. Having driven an Accord Type R I can say the sound makes the S3 pale into insignificance and the throttle response makes you feel like you are waiting for a kettle to boil when you floor it in the S3.

I strongly disagree that VTECs are boring - as cosworth said they have a strong racing pedigree and would be more suited to a race track than a scoob engine. I could guess which would go bang first too under full on driving.

Diablo

Its really down to how you prefer to drive

Torquey engines are "easier" to make good progress with than less toquey engines, there's no doubt about that. You can be lazy and just leave it in the high gears.

Forced induction engines will always develop more torque in the mid range than naturally aspirated ones.

The in gear comparisons between the Pug and the CTR are interesting and more relevant, but more likely explained by the CTR being lower geared than the pug.

I totally disagree with the roundabout analogy though John. Never had any problems with pickup in the teg in 2nd gear exiting hairpin bends/roundabouts/whatever. Type R's are low geared. If I recall, 60 mph in 2nd was 8000 rpm plus. In fact, it would catch out a number of higher powered and higher geared cars doing just that.

LOL...with the infamous 2nd gear @ 3000 rpm half boost MY99 issue, the teg was much better in those situations than the scoob. I've driven the CRT extensively and have no issues with it there.

If you're finding it gutless when exiting low speed 2nd gear conditions, you're either not cornering fast enough or you're in a low speed limited section of road where, lets face it, maximum attack from a given situation is not at all appropriate anyway.

What people who really have no experience of Type R engines forget, is that a Vtec honda engine is smoother, more refined, and *feels* far less stressed at, say, 6000 rpm than many other engines are at 4000 rpm (Iscoob included).

With the short gears, I would find myself using far higher revs in day to day driving without being aware of it, and without driving particularly quickly, but purely as a feature of short gearing.

Put decent sound proofing in a type R civic (which is better) or 'Teg, run it to 6000 rpm with the rev counter disconnected and I guarantee a driver of any non Vtec engine, turbo or n/a would be hard pushed to know the engine was turning over at more than 4000 rpm. There's no vibration, it sounds sweet as a nut and the only give away is the pitch.

Even the pitch of the noise is weird when you live with them, though. You would swear the rev counter was significantly over reading.

But the Type R's (teg in particular) have little in the way of sound proofing so they are noisier - but thats the whole point of the type R philosophy.

A VAG 1.8 turbo golf Gti(cos lets compare on price, which is relevant to most people) is NOT a direct competitor for a CTR (although VAG's marketing men will have you believe otherwise ) One is for people who take their driving seriously and the other ain't. Not rocket science to work out which is which.

When having some fun, it was really no hardship to drive a Type R all day between 5k and 8K revs due to the gearing. Certainly no harder than driving, say a classic scoob between 3k and 6k revs.

But you have to live with them for a while to appreciate that, and get over the fact that you are revving the thing much higher than all your pre Vtec experiences tell you you should.

And whilst I appreciate and would repeat that torque is the way to go when at 80% commitment, there is nothing quite like a Vtec when you are totally committed to kissing the redline in every gear.

Throttle response is a world apart, for a start. And the induction noise betters anything this side of a multi cylinder exotic. Think twin dcoe Weber carbs for the oldies, or individual open throttle bodies. Better than a touring car at full chat.

Perhaps you're just getting a bit old John

D

john banks

The 2nd gear issue is easily resolved thankfully

If you are steering on the throttle in a 35mph tight corner (say Knockhill hairpin in the wet) you are going to be in 2nd gear, no big torque until 4000 RPM is really a hindrance when you fit some bigger turbos. Yes it pulls out of the bend smoothly enough, but let's not mistake that for real thrust out of bends. Perhaps low torque is the best way for a FWD vehicle.

Thankfully I said the VAG motor was a competitor I did not comment on the vehicles they put in because I didn't want a flame war with the Vagophiles too

When pressing on I try to keep my engine between 5000 and 7000 RPM, but as I said when you datalog a run you will find that it can be tricky to keep a car in the top quarter of its power band all the time, you are likely to be less good than you think at it when measuring it

[Edited by john banks - 7/23/2003 10:14:23 AM]

juan

Turbos are the competition! This is the arena in which the vtec competes, so stop trying to eliminate them from the comparisons.

Apart from that, I love your unabrasive approach though, and the way you don't insult everyone who disagrees with you. very mature.




10 big ones to get another car to the same 'race prep' standard as a civic type r? r u sure?

Agreed - same with shifting from evo to FCT.



Mycroft lives?

[Edited by juan - 7/23/2003 12:13:25 PM]

Cosworth427

================================================== ================
"Turbos are the competition! This is the arena in which the vtec competes, so stop trying to eliminate them from the comparisons."
================================================== ================


This is exactly why I don't take certain opinions to well. Instead of taking in the information posted here, they choose to remain ignorant and argue their beliefs to the death.

Turbocharging is forced in induction. Much like supercharging and nitrous injection. I don't know why or where people have taken the idea that VTEC is a competitor to forced induction when VTEC is just a set up that lets you switch between street cam and race ram automatically! If I installed 10 mm lift cam shaft on my inline-6, does that mean I have added another "turbocharger"??

I shouldn't have to remind some of you about this, and you still try to say you people are not narrowminded?


================================================== ================
"Apart from that, I love your unabrasive approach though, and the way you don't insult everyone who disagrees with you. very mature."
================================================== =================


This goes to others members in here too: I don't have a problem with differences in preference or opinion. Simple as that.

I just don't take kindly to unqualified critism on things beyond the scope of those who made those comments. Juan, your comment about Turbos vs VTEC is just an example of that unqualified and totally misinformed concept what VTEC or similar sets are about.

Don't play the "I insult people when they disagree" card when it's clear that the opinions of some of you don't fit the facts!

Here's an example from another Mole, called Rich D


"You don't even need VTEC or any other gimmicks..."


This is an irrational response to my question to anyone in this board to find a 2.0litre natural aspirated engine that can match the torque curve of the CTR engine. If you haven't seen Rich D's dynosheet, scroll up now and take a look. 30 HP deficit and a loss of torque in the last 1000 RPM.

It clearly does not match a CTR engine, so I don't know why he bothered with the dynograph.

I'm past my lunch break writing this, and I'm through with arguing with idiots.

john banks

It does rather sound like you want to frame this discussion entirely on your terms, and if others will not comply they are passing "unqualified criticism" and "remaining ignorant". Smears are the lowest of all tactics used in debates, it is a shame you have to draw on them. You make some valid and well reasoned arguments, not all of which I agree with, but I can appreciate your point of view. Some of the most successful, brightest, most educated people I have come across let the strength of their argument stand up and will take a very open, questioning approach. Drop the narcissism and people may well respect you more.

TurboMav

now now children lol

Ali-T

BACK ON TOPIC...

Well, i took delivery of one of the first CTRs in Edinburgh so have had it over 18 months now. Won't bore you with the nit picking bits:

For:

Looks great in black
Good engine, not great but good
Engine needs to be revved
Sounds terrific on cam with the windows down in a tunnel!!!
Fast for what it is and what it costs
Good handling as long as the geometry is properly adjusted and it's not on the original tyres (Toyos suit it well)
Very well balanced for a FWD with plenty of adjustability
Good ride (on the Toyos, rubbish on the RE040)
Loads of dry grip and (again with decent tyres) plenty in the wet
Comfortable seats and very good ergonomics
Terrific gearbox and change
Decent costs and long service interval

Against:

Looks odd in silver and tarty in red
Lots of odd engine noises that are normal but off puttingwhen off cam
Engine needs to be revved
Should sound better inside the car
Original tyres are rubbish (RE040)
Bit too much roll in corners
Can be snappish if the geometry isn't spot on
Seats too soft and make you think the ride is bouncier than it is
Seats don't offer that much support in hard cornering
Gloomy cabin and thin, hard plastics that rattle
Honda UK is rubbish frankly

Would it lose a 172? If you know how to drive then yes.

All in all its a bit of a bargain. Not as great as some claim and not as bland as others claim either.

If anyone's interested, mine is going up for sale next year iN Edinburgh.

What will replace it? Well, an older Civic, Yaris T Sport or similar........oh.......and a 2001 Corvette Z06 for the weekends!!!

Paul_M

So if someone is considering buying a new car, test drives a Leon Cupra-R then test drives the Civic Type-R. He says to the Honda dealer "not too keen on the power delivery of that, preferred the Leon". So by your reckoning the dealer should reply "You idiot, you can't compare these cars, the CTR has VTEC it's not forced induction". To which the customer might reply "But they're in the same price bracket", which is met with "price bracket is irrelevant, you can't compare a NA car with forced induction, only idiots with their heads up their *** do such a thing!"

Just because they use different methods to get similar top-end power (i.e. the Leon more torque at lower RPM, the CTR less torque but at higher RPM) automatically means anyone who compares the two is an idiot? Get real... this is the real world, there are people who will 100% prefer one method and others who will feel the exact opposite, neither is wrong nor is an idiot in my opinion.

Does the same analogy apply to someone who can't decide between the more refined 911 Turbo or the rawer but similar power 911 GT3? I suppose they'd be classed as an idiot as well for attempting to compare two totally incomparible cars.

Dul

I agree with you Ali-T except about the “roll in corner”. I think for a standard car it stays quite flat in the curves and the seats are really doing a good job for me. The color is a personal opinion…

For: I would add the brake feeling and brake efficiency (comparing to other cars of the same category)
Against: Steering wheel feeling. It really takes a while to get use to.

P.S. I do not know in UK but in CH a Leon Cupra-R cost about 10k CHF more than a CRT (£4.2k) for more or less the same performance. (Even if it has a better quality and it is easily tunable)


[Edited by Dul - 7/23/2003 9:26:10 PM]

Cosworth427

================================================== ====================
"Smears are the lowest of all tactics used in debates, it is a shame you have to draw on them. You make some valid and well reasoned arguments, not all of which I agree with, but I can appreciate your point of view."
================================================== ====================



Take the "debate" and shove it. I much rather be spend time out there working on my car(s) than sit at my desk lunch time and evenings seeing my posts go unread without any attention.

I probably am the most "open minded" dude in here, I have driven and enjoyed small displacement, big displacement, turbo charged and natural aspirated cars. The existence of one car doesn't mean the other is inferior, but your example of a V6 saloon with more crank torque assumes that the CTR is a POS.

You calling a CTR torqueless and gutless is just like some rycer saying American performance cars can't handle. It's a pathetic stereotype based on misconceptions rather than REAL experience and knowledge. REAL experience & knowledge you lack from post to post. But keep posting, because who really gives a damn? It makes no difference to the autocrossers and track enthusiasts who enjoy their Type-R's, and actually BEAT cars with more torque.


Paul_M
================================================== ==================
"Does the same analogy apply to someone who can't decide between the more refined 911 Turbo or the rawer but similar power 911 GT3? I suppose they'd be classed as an idiot as well for attempting to compare two totally incomparible cars. "
================================================== ==================


A car making use of two cam profiles for better street drivability have nothing to do with whether someone should choose a damn exotic car over another exotic car.

*Someone* here used an example of turbo lag or zone of no boost as if it represents the CTR's alleged lack of low end torque. I have said over and over again, with a damn dynograph that the CTR has a flat torque curve. 141 - 150 lbs/torque from 2500 - 8000 RPM.

Honda 4 cylinder makes as much maximum torque as any N/A car with 2 litres. The difference is it can make it without losing drivability. Fit a race cam on a 2.0 Mondeo and gain good HP, but you'd stall unless you launch at 3000 + RPM. Fit a race cam on a 2.0 Vectra/Cavalier, you'd stall unless you drive it a 3000 + RPM. Hell, fit a race cam on an old 3.4 Porsche 6 cylinder, and you'd be chugging away in slow traffic and a tired right foot.

When Honda wants to increase all round power, *they*, just like Porsche & BMW - increase the displacement. Sure, all 3 manufacturers have variable valve and cam technology, but if they considered it as effective as forced induction, why do they bother with extra displacement?? Why did the S2000 us a 2.0 instead of 1.8?? Why did the upgraded NSX increase from 3.0 litres to 3.2 litres??? Why did M3 use an inline-6 instead of a 4 cylinder from the E30??

Never has it been known as fact that VTEC, VANOs, VarioCam is some kind of forced induction. If anyone tells you it is, laugh at their face and walk away.

juan

Have people been saying VTEC is forced induction? People are saying it competes with forced induction. Its a fairly simple idea to pick up on but you seem to be missing the point either deliberately or because red mist is clouding your view.

Paul_M hits the nail on the head. What he said is exactly what I meant only put much more clearly.
Leon (and others) vs CTR is a very reasonable comparison that buyers will be making but it seems that you overlooked that part of the post. Maybe its a bit dark up cozbatty?


heh! right on.

Don't think many people here have said this.

[Edited by juan - 7/24/2003 9:24:59 AM]

[Edited by juan - 7/24/2003 9:26:10 AM]

john banks

I lack "REAL" experience and knowledge because I disagree with you

Ali-T

You guys realise you're the only ones reading each others posts don't you?

We'll just talk round you if that's alright!