04 vs 03 Dyno test on vtec.net
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 4,054
Likes: 0
From: Bronxville/NY
i can't wait i can see the thread starting up as i type...." which color is the fastest 04 color" omg that would be funny, by the way UL on that note wat color is the 04 you are testing 
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,792
Likes: 4
Well I'm not going to talk about advancement, whatever that means but Honda has built about 15 Million? or is it 1.5Million? VTEC engines and hasn't had one VTEC failure yet.. well according to Top Gear anyway.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
From: SF Bay Area
Originally posted by TurboVtk
i can't wait i can see the thread starting up as i type...." which color is the fastest 04 color" omg that would be funny, by the way UL on that note wat color is the 04 you are testing
i can't wait i can see the thread starting up as i type...." which color is the fastest 04 color" omg that would be funny, by the way UL on that note wat color is the 04 you are testing
Of course I might be a little biased.
OK, more than a little...
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
From: Madison
Quote from Steve C:
"Not only is the author of that wonderful post obviously failing to read any (not even some or most) of the posts accurately, he takes it further with even more outlandish claims regarding the cost of the 04 motor and why Honda still uses the original in other markets."
Are you suggesting, Steve C, that the new 2.2 engine is not more expensive to build? Did you read the article on Temple of Vtec? If you are making this suggestion, then readers can judge for themselves how reliable your grip on reality, or manufacturing, is. Just retooling costs money. Design costs money. These changes were expensive for Honda. Your entitled to your opinion, but if you are going to dismiss mine as being outlandish, I'm going to question your understanding of basic economics. Profits result after expenses. That last thing a manufacturer wants to do from a profit standpoint is to have to significantly redesign a car after only 3 years. They did this with future, long term, profits and image advantages in mind.
As to the ratio of expense to profit, well, that's pretty basic economic thought. It is a fact that manufacturers are often ahead of the car production line in engine construction. Extra engines are made, for example, in case of failures. The RX7 was natorious for actually running out of engines way sooner than it should have. I think that both of my suggestions, the need to use up extra engine inventory coupled with the desire to maximize profits, are quite plausible as to why the U.S. is getting this engine first. My statements are not "outlandish."
"Not only is the author of that wonderful post obviously failing to read any (not even some or most) of the posts accurately, he takes it further with even more outlandish claims regarding the cost of the 04 motor and why Honda still uses the original in other markets."
Are you suggesting, Steve C, that the new 2.2 engine is not more expensive to build? Did you read the article on Temple of Vtec? If you are making this suggestion, then readers can judge for themselves how reliable your grip on reality, or manufacturing, is. Just retooling costs money. Design costs money. These changes were expensive for Honda. Your entitled to your opinion, but if you are going to dismiss mine as being outlandish, I'm going to question your understanding of basic economics. Profits result after expenses. That last thing a manufacturer wants to do from a profit standpoint is to have to significantly redesign a car after only 3 years. They did this with future, long term, profits and image advantages in mind.
As to the ratio of expense to profit, well, that's pretty basic economic thought. It is a fact that manufacturers are often ahead of the car production line in engine construction. Extra engines are made, for example, in case of failures. The RX7 was natorious for actually running out of engines way sooner than it should have. I think that both of my suggestions, the need to use up extra engine inventory coupled with the desire to maximize profits, are quite plausible as to why the U.S. is getting this engine first. My statements are not "outlandish."
