Associate
Went in 1.8 Integra type R ...
- Thread starter salami1212
- Start date
most people dont get me
i didnt really have a point i just suggested that they could have acheived a similar power level and overall experience without using vtec to be told that no you cant have an engine with a broad powerband and linear power delivery without vtec, which you can.
Lol, they did! They used VVTi.
Seriously what are you talking about.
Oh and try getting near a Honda 2.0 - I raise your pathetic 197hp
i didnt at any point state said alternative engine would need to make 100bhp per litre! I've said several times it would have to have more displacement as obviously its not going to have cam switching or phasing ( although given cam phasing has been used for a looong time no reason why honda couldnt have used it), so the displacement would make up for the loss of low rpm power whilst using a cam more suitable to upper rpm performance. Is that really that hard an idea to get round
Last edited:
You realise VVTI is very similar to VTEC?
They both offer a non-compromised power optimised camshaft whislt maintaining driveability.
Toyota then added the lift to get VVTL-i and Honda added the cam phasing to get i-VTEC.
i didnt at any point state said alternative engine would need to make 100bhp per litre! I've said several times it would have to have more displacement as obviously its not going to have cam switching or phasing ( although given cam phasing has been used for a looong time no reason why honda couldnt have used it), so the displacement would make up for the loss of low rpm power whilst using a cam more suitable to upper rpm performance. Is that really that hard an idea to get round
But the entire argument *started* (as much as I can tell) by stating power differences between engines with similar displacement...?
i didnt at any point state said alternative engine would need to make 100bhp per litre! I've said several times it would have to have more displacement as obviously its not going to have cam switching or phasing, so the displacement would make up for the loss of low rpm power whilst using a cam more suitable to upper rpm performance. Is that really that hard an idea to get round
Not many engines will rev to the upper limits of these engines. Port sizes will be need to be so big on especially on a large engine, it will struggle low down due to inlet velocitys and poor fuel atomisation. You need the 'clever' cams for the low down power and high revs.
no it started when i suggested that if they had used a different engine in the integra that gave a similar experience in everything except noise that it would still have been very popular because its such a good chassis, but its turned into the worst case of vtec defense i've ever seen
i used what was possibly a bad example because details are being argued now and the whole concept is lost on everyone.simon - yes i know about vvti/vtec, vvti in the example i gave accounts for around 5% low and mid range torque, not to much of a problem if it was lost when its making 10% more torque than a b18 anyway, and has negligable impact on top end, the same engine go's on to make a considerably higher than stock peak power well over 8000rpm (up from 7000 stock) when given a new ecu aswell so obviously port design etc has as much to do with it as it doesnt have any cam lift, so even if you took vvti away, and opened up the rpms a little you could shorten the gearing a bit more to account for any loss in torque, so it is possible without any cam trickery.
In the example of a larger engine, why would it need to rev to the same extremes as a b18? it makes more torque through its displacement, it wouldnt have to spin so high, hence me saying the biggest difference would be noise.
Last edited:
Soldato
They do seem to get into the wrong hands I agree, but the K20 in the EP3 is so so good, much more room for modifications over a B-series.
I used to own an EP3 for a short time, it was a good car but it just wasn't as fun as I thought it'd be. They can be made better with a Hondata ECU, few exhaust mods and fast road setup though but as said, they don't really compare to a DC2. EP3 really needs an LSD too.
No one has VTEC defence, both systems are good. Your just came in claiming the 2.0 BEAMS engine was better, then saying it has 10% more torque, well this is obvious as it is over 10% bigger (unrelated to the OP).
Your scenario is irrelevant.
If you did set it to peak power phasing all the time then i doubt it would idle due to the overlap, it certainly won't pass the emissions. Just like sticking a VTEC on the peak camshaft all day.
And the 50bhp extra power and a massive powerband
i didnt say at any point the beams was better, i was using it as an example of another way of doing things to acheive similar results, when i first mentioned the idea i said it would have to be a larger displacement engine.
i can tell from what your saying now though you havent read half of what i've said.
yes you could.
Soldato
i didnt at any point state said alternative engine would need to make 100bhp per litre! I've said several times it would have to have more displacement as obviously its not going to have cam switching or phasing ( although given cam phasing has been used for a looong time no reason why honda couldnt have used it), so the displacement would make up for the loss of low rpm power whilst using a cam more suitable to upper rpm performance. Is that really that hard an idea to get round
What like the Prelude?
I guess they didnt like the boat anchor up front but lots of power idea?
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 1,236
seems to be a lot of discussion over vtec lately! quite amusing tbh.