Drove a V Tec

munday · Sep 4, 2008

For those that say turbo cars are not the way forward... you are wrong

The future of cars will be small turbocharged engines (hmm small engine turbo'd...what car does that make me think of

) giving great efficiency and good power.

After all turbocharges use energy that would otherwise have been wasted down the exhaust, and can breathe a greater mass of air than its swept volume would normally allow...a 2 litre can become a 4 litre (in a matter of speaking) yet size and weight only increase a modest amount.

Two reasons why a turbo engine has the POTENTIAL to be more economical.

1) Thermal efficiency

2) Shape of power curve - N/A engines can be tuned using variable valve timing (or V-tec) for good bottom end power, or high end, but is very unlikely to have both - the compromise to get good bottom end power is too great.

Having good bottom end power is important because you can use lower engine revs while driving, keeping frictional losses inside the engine low (they increase rapidly as engine revs rise)

And the best way to efficiently give a small engine good low-down power is to turbo it.

Opps...sorry ive rambled on a bit :homer:

Gee · Sep 4, 2008

If anyone can tell me an easier, more efficent or cheaper way of gaining the same percentage of torque and power that a turbo produces when slapped on to an engine I'd be suprised.

(Not including a supercharger

)

CTR_Timmy · Sep 4, 2008

anyone see the Mugen Type RR Civic on 5th gear the other night? Looked savage :rockon:

madgt · Sep 4, 2008

Now thats a real nice toy!! 10 kg lighter than the standard Honda Civic Type R and has 15 bhp more!! Must be wicked on handling!

CTR_Timmy · Sep 4, 2008

I just loved that roar from the duplex mugen exhaust 30k though to import into UK bit steep

madgt · Sep 4, 2008

Well rather go for an evo for that kind of money

parkiboy · Sep 4, 2008

bit late but...

froshtyv · Sep 4, 2008

madgt said:
@ froshtyv!

I rather have a evo 6 over the ep3!! Dont get me wrong the ep3 is wicked car once tunned up tho!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlgCkL8Ekg8

Well if you have pots of money to replace teh things that ARE going to go, and believe me they will,

A 9 year old car that was not bought for soft weekend use and has "65,000" miles.

Gearbox transfer box rear diff ayc pump!!

They are 2500 grand brand new for an AYC pump,

I know that the civic wont be braking down, plus EVO just feel fast anyway, look down at the clock when your finished giving it some and youll see,

Fair enough they will handle well but at what cost???

glanzaV195 · Sep 4, 2008

munday said:
For those that say turbo cars are not the way forward... you are wrong

The future of cars will be small turbocharged engines (hmm small engine turbo'd...what car does that make me think of ) giving great efficiency and good power.

After all turbocharges use energy that would otherwise have been wasted down the exhaust, and can breathe a greater mass of air than its swept volume would normally allow...a 2 litre can become a 4 litre (in a matter of speaking) yet size and weight only increase a modest amount.

Two reasons why a turbo engine has the POTENTIAL to be more economical.

1) Thermal efficiency

2) Shape of power curve - N/A engines can be tuned using variable valve timing (or V-tec) for good bottom end power, or high end, but is very unlikely to have both - the compromise to get good bottom end power is too great.

Having good bottom end power is important because you can use lower engine revs while driving, keeping frictional losses inside the engine low (they increase rapidly as engine revs rise)

And the best way to efficiently give a small engine good low-down power is to turbo it.

Opps...sorry ive rambled on a bit :homer:

dont you think your being a bit narrow minded?
its been said before.... vtec is not ment as a substitute for a turbo, but yet you still compare.they were designed to be reliable under extreme abusive driving conditions, they can be abused beyond beliefe! a small tuned turbo engine with stock internals is not in the same leauge, no way near!
different designs..... different purposes. different strokes for different folks

honda designed the b series engine in the 80's, technoligy way ahead of its time, and if it were no good why would others copy them?(toyota vvtl-i, mitsu mivec bla bla bla)
for ultimate power variable lift/timing etc plus forced induction is the way forward, ie evo has mivec turbo.
as for eficiency, my ek9 is far better on fuel than my starlet but both cars have similar performance, the starlet is obviously modified.

munday · Sep 4, 2008

glanzaV195 said:
dont you think your being a bit narrow minded?
its been said before.... vtec is not ment as a substitute for a turbo, but yet you still compare.they were designed to be reliable under extreme abusive driving conditions, they can be abused beyond beliefe! a small tuned turbo engine with stock internals is not in the same leauge, no way near!
different designs..... different purposes. different strokes for different folks
honda designed the b series engine in the 80's, technoligy way ahead of its time, and if it were no good why would others copy them?(toyota vvtl-i, mitsu mivec bla bla bla)
for ultimate power variable lift/timing etc plus forced induction is the way forward, ie evo has mivec turbo.
as for eficiency, my ek9 is far better on fuel than my starlet but both cars have similar performance, the starlet is obviously modified.

I agree with you 99% (the 1% is because i belive rovers VVC system was designed before v tec, although i doubt it saw production first)

Im not trying to compare v-tec to anything else (just used it as an example in my point), and yes a turbo engine is very different to a NA one.

My point was that for efficiency a turbo engine cannot be beaten, and it is the way car manufacturers are going to keep emissions low and power high (relatively).

And yes your ek9 is probably more fuel efficient, but if you had two engines tuned for economy, the turbo engine would be way out ahead.

I have a lot of respect for v-tecs, they are probably the best NA engines around...But they are caveman technology compared to the new breed of variable valve timing (even VVC can actively change duration throughout the revs to create power)

I Jest, dont be offended im only having a laugh

Dan3SGTE · Sep 4, 2008

madgt said:
Now thats a real nice toy!! 10 kg lighter than the standard Honda Civic Type R and has 15 bhp more!! Must be wicked on handling!

LOL... that 10kg is the difference in having a decent filled shopping bag in the car....

Would make near enough 0 difference in performance unless that was unsprung weight i.e below the chassis then maybe, fair does.....

glanzaV195 · Sep 4, 2008

munday said:
I agree with you 99% (the 1% is because i belive rovers VVC system was designed before v tec, although i doubt it saw production first)

Im not trying to compare v-tec to anything else (just used it as an example in my point), and yes a turbo engine is very different to a NA one.

My point was that for efficiency a turbo engine cannot be beaten, and it is the way car manufacturers are going to keep emissions low and power high (relatively).

And yes your ek9 is probably more fuel efficient, but if you had two engines tuned for economy, the turbo engine would be way out ahead.

I have a lot of respect for v-tecs, they are probably the best NA engines around...But they are caveman technology compared to the new breed of variable valve timing (even VVC can actively change duration throughout the revs to create power)

I Jest, dont be offended im only having a laugh

ok it seems you do understand

and have good points,
i agree if were talking about manifactures trying for economy and power then turbo'd smaller engines are the way forward, even french cars have started to go this way(renault twingo 1200cc turbo, altho i think it uses a nissan engine???) but when it comes to tuning older cars like ours for power and economy it is different,in most cases it doesn't work out with out a comprimise, so again its all down to user prefrence i suppose.
are you sure about the rover vvc engines? didn't think they came out untill a few years after? and when they did they were not in the same class altho they had potential there, the first b16a's came out in 87/88 i think, so yeah it is old technoligy as it aint changed much, but it didn't need to realisticly,

glanzaV195 · Sep 4, 2008

starlet3SGTE said:
LOL... that 10kg is the difference in having a decent filled shopping bag in the car....

Would make near enough 0 difference in performance unless that was unsprung weight i.e below the chassis then maybe, fair does.....

think its more than 10 kg lighter, and yeah a good percentage of it would be unsprung weight, wheels struts etc

Corey_gt · Sep 4, 2008

Had a look at this when it was posted first and thats was about it but this thread seems to be here a good while which got me thinking ' I wonder is there a thread about starlets on a v-tec site this long'. I'd seriously doubt it. So if a v-tec head came on here I'd say they'd have a wee giggle to themselves.

Just a thought.

munday · Sep 4, 2008

glanzaV195 said:
ok it seems you do understand and have good points,
i agree if were talking about manifactures trying for economy and power then turbo'd smaller engines are the way forward, even french cars have started to go this way(renault twingo 1200cc turbo, altho i think it uses a nissan engine???) but when it comes to tuning older cars like ours for power and economy it is different,in most cases it doesn't work out with out a comprimise, so again its all down to user prefrence i suppose.
are you sure about the rover vvc engines? didn't think they came out untill a few years after? and when they did they were not in the same class altho they had potential there, the first b16a's came out in 87/88 i think, so yeah it is old technoligy as it aint changed much, but it didn't need to realisticly,

Glad we agree mate

My 155bhp (well 154.9 to be exact) had much better MPG than my glanza which i estimate is similar power. So your point is totally correct, when tuning for power, NA rules the fuel economy roost!

The rover vvc system was patented in 1973, and developed in 1989. Yes you are correct that they did come out some time after the B16a

Great thread...Rep needed :gt-smilie:

PS Hondas are gay starlets rule...

glanzaV195 · Sep 4, 2008

munday said:
Glad we agree mate

My 155bhp (well 154.9 to be exact) had much better MPG than my glanza which i estimate is similar power. So your point is totally correct, when tuning for power, NA rules the fuel economy roost!

The rover vvc system was patented in 1973, and developed in 1989. Yes you are correct that they did come out some time after the B16a

Great thread...Rep needed :gt-smilie:

PS Hondas are gay starlets rule...

dont try to upset me! lol, any way i have both......

and both are great but for such different reasons.
wow didn't know that about the rover design, quite impressive really, in 73 most manifacturers were still using ohv engines, and ohc was like something special at the time

Deano · Sep 4, 2008

The tvis in toyota (Toyota Variable Induction System) came out in 1983 before vtec http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-VIS

Phil · Sep 4, 2008

and fait had variable valve timing in the 60's. and even in the Vtec's hayday nisssans 1600 was quicker.

Chris@CCM · Sep 4, 2008

Deano said:
The tvis in toyota (Toyota Variable Induction System) came out in 1983 before vtec http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-VIS

mabby so but it was guff lol

Chris@CCM · Sep 5, 2008

Drove a V Tec

Member +

Member +

CTR_Timmy

Guest

Fresh Recruit

CTR_Timmy

Guest

Fresh Recruit

Member +

Member +

Member +

Member +

Member +

Member +

Member +

Admin

Member +

Member +

Banned

Super Moderator

Member +

Member +