So what's the big deal with vtec?

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

May 17, 2008 | 04:46 PM

#61

Halo

Joined: Nov 2002

Posts: 1,235

Likes: 1

From: Bay Area

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED MX5,May 17 2008, 02:58 PM

Too bad the S2000 won't pull the front wheel(s) as easily as the VFR.

True dat

May 17, 2008 | 05:47 PM

#62

neuronbob

Joined: Mar 2008

Posts: 1,347

Likes: 14

From: Cleveland, OH

LOL at this whole thread! RedMX5's long post was very educational.

VTEC is still a remarkable, if no longer unique technology. One wonders when Honda will move away from it, if ever.

With that said, it's fun to listen to the cam lobe change, whether it's in my S, my RL, or even the wife's Pilot.

May 17, 2008 | 07:21 PM

#63

RED MX5

Registered User

Joined: Feb 2004

Posts: 7,087

Likes: 2

From: Dry Branch

Quote:

Originally Posted by neuronbob,May 17 2008, 08:47 PM

With that said, it's fun to listen to the cam lobe change, whether it's in my S, my RL, or even the wife's Pilot.

It's like having a two stroke engine "come on the pipe," and is the kind of thing that can lead to addiction. Maybe we need to start a special forum for recovering VTECaholics?

May 17, 2008 | 08:29 PM

#64

Riceboi

Registered User

Joined: Aug 2004

Posts: 4,144

Likes: 2

From: Nor Cal

Try hitting VTEC when your map sensor is messed up. lol

May 18, 2008 | 07:06 AM

#65

s2ktimmy

Joined: Jul 2007

Posts: 198

Likes: 1

From: 909 socal

V-TEC is the shit FTMFW

May 19, 2008 | 04:12 AM

#66

AssassinJN

Joined: Aug 2006

Posts: 4,802

Likes: 5

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED MX5,May 16 2008, 07:20 PM

I would agree that you certainly *can* look at it either way, but one way makes more sense than the other; The entire engine has to be designed for high RPM operation, and the performance cam profiles are what you would expect in an engine designed for 9,000 RPM operation. The low RPM profiles are just a crutch to make the car more drivable. If the engine had been designed for effeciency at lower revs, and used VTEC to get some extra power at higher revs, then the common view of VTEC as a power adder would make more sense, but that's just not the way our engines were designed. LOL, anyway, that's why I see it the way I do.

I use to have a car with a power band that peaked near 9k, and without VTEC and a milder cam profile for low RPM operation, driving in stop and go traffic pretty much sucked, so maybe my perspective is somewhat warped.

Touche(with an accent although that key is broken on my work computer

) Thinking of the engine from the production standpoint then does make more sense that vtec was added for drivability, not performance.

And what kind of car was that? Sounds almost like an old lancia or peugeot.

May 19, 2008 | 01:07 PM

#67

RED MX5

Registered User

Joined: Feb 2004

Posts: 7,087

Likes: 2

From: Dry Branch

Quote:

Originally Posted by AssassinJN,May 19 2008, 07:12 AM

And what kind of car was that? Sounds almost like an old lancia or peugeot.

Lancia isn't that far off the mark, 'cause Fiat owned Lancia at the time.
We had a little Fiat X-1/9 that was nicely "warmed over," and even with 4.88:1 final drive, the car still wouldn't pull or run well at lower revs. At the time I actually enjoyed the "lopy" idle, because it was one of the characteristics that went along with a high output engine, but now that I've tried VTEC I wouldn't want to go back. It's funny, because even back then (late 70's) we talked about how nice it would be if we could vary the valve lift and timing.