this is for the idiots who think VVT-I is like VTEC. http://world.honda.com/HDTV/news/2003-4031127a watch and be amazed.... i had a type-R and it ____es me off how sutpid on here compares these two motors. toyota is NOT on this level yet

 

VTEC is a good system, but it is equally stupid to act as if it is some magical turbo like system. It is a very simple system with a balance between econo and performance... period. That is specifically what it was designed for. If it were designed for pure performance it would have been drastically different.. actually it would have a more aggressive cam profile all the way around. Yes, it is incorrect to think they are the same, but it is naive to act as if it is some astronomical performance technology, or that toyota isn't "up to that level" yet. VTEC will soon be replaced by electronically controlled, continuously variable valves... which, by the way BMW and Cadillac are pushing hard to do. I myself am dissapointed in the dated VVT-i, VVTL-i, VTEC, etc technologies. Not because they are bad designs (they are all good), but because a camless engine would perform WORLDS above them, and it is past due for them to become realized.
e
But my main point is to stop getting your panties in a wad over these things.. some people just dont know the difference.. and I am sure there are more than a few things others could teach you. Second, VTEC != rocket motor.. just as many people treat it like a "turbo" as do treat it the same as VVT-i, which is just as incorrect.

 

If you took the time to actually watch that video you would also realize that the VTEC part is not the thing they are even bragging on, it is a the IVTEC-I engine

 

So you had an ITR and stepped down to a tC?

 

interesting

 

for TQ yes. HP i can get. but there is no replacement for displacement. i hated the TQ in my type-r but i loved the high end HP. it all depends on what you want. i like going hard in auto-x, YOU NEED TQ for that. but anyway i dont look at it as a step down i look at it like a new proect

 

you are aware of course, that the integra type R is a multiple time Dstock autocross national champion and is going to be vastly faster than a TC right?

you are also familiar with the fact that gears multiply torque, and that if you make power at a high rpm, you can get an exactly equivalent torque at the wheels with proper gearing, right?

you are also familiar with the fact that the integra is a lot lighter than the TC right? and that acceleration and mass are intricately linked?

I hope you don't actually think you just bought a faster autocross car....

 

Seems to me that the glass roof wouldn't be a good thing to have in an Auto-x car.

 

It is not near as heavy as people think.. but does add weight at the furthest point from the CG, so does have an effect on body roll. If I remember correctly the entire glass roof assembly weighs in at about 70 lbs.

Also the mention of rpm and power was pretty confusing sounding... maybe not incorrect, but not well stated. HP is a value calculated from TQ and RPM and a constant made up of the various conversion factors, so simply stated: HP =(tq*rpm)/5252, which is why a bhp chart will show the tq and HP lines intersecting at 5252. So with a torquey motor across the band, you have the ability to produce more HP at lower rpms, which is a better setup for accel/decell driving than being able to produce HP only at high rpm due to a lack of tq. Gearing also has a muliplying effect on this transmitted power... in a way. Conservation of energy keeps us in check to a point there as well. Yes, you can slap some short gears in a car and produce a ton of torque to the wheels... however, you are spinning the engine faster to do it. Or, you can place tall gears in a car and see an opposite effect. So a proper balance has to be reached.

I am in no way comparing the integra to the tC, just clarifying some of the info posted here. I could care less which one is faster stock... I like the tC, it has good potential for building, and all I really care about is what I can do with it... that is my fun of modding a car, not comparing to every other car out there...

but I think the point of this thread has already been addressed... so we are just getting off topic even further now

 

Oo, wow - nice.

Halfbreed, you really shouldn't be coming on here telling us that VTEC is different from VVT-i (which you should know, most of us know that) and using iVTEC-I as your evidence.

I remember you saying something about the K20 and whatnot - here's some news: The K20 does not have iVTEC-I. Or is that not your point?

Is your point simply that Toyota is not on the level of Honda? Oh wait, no. Your point is that:

And you wanted us to
And of course this isn't for those in the know already like you who
Instead it's for
So in the end, you really are a moron.

I mean honestly, you can't say anything because you would need to know everything about both motors to be able to be an expert and since you obviously CAN'T SPELL VVT-i PROPERLY, YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY AN IDIOT. Your mistake in this instance is that the 'i' is not capitalized, moron.

For those of you just joining us, this is the guy that called me an idiot for spelling VTEC as V-tech. My spelling error was a bit more than capitalization but my point is that spelling doesn't make an expert other than an expert in spelling.

Anyways, that said, the video posted really was amazing. But even more amazing is how you somehow think this is proof that VVT-i is different from VTEC. Here's more news for you: VTEC does not have direct injection. iVTEC does not have direct injection. The K20A2 and 3 do not use direct injection. The B blocks of yore do not use direct injection and most importantly, THE INTEGRA TYPE-R DOES NOT USE DIRECT INJECTION.


It ____es me off how stupid people come on here and compare two relatively similar systems, with a completely irrelevant and totally different system that is used in a Honda van sold in Europe.

FYI, VVT-i serves the same purpose as VTC which is found in iVTEC. Yes, the execution may be different. They serve the same purpose.

It also ____es me off how stupid people think that by owning a VTEC engine automatically makes them experts in the VTEC field. Well based on this logic, I'm an expert too because I have a VTEC motor sitting in my garage.


But the thing that slightly irritates me is how you have the nerve to come here and call yourself an expert and call other people, aka ME, idiots while you have not demonstrated ONCE your knowledge of VTEC and VVT-i and how they can not be compared.

Tell us, sir, since you already know something about VTEC, what do you know about VVT-i? You have demonstrated you know something about Toyota motors namely in that heads can't be swapped cross engines. What about the cams? What about how they work, how they modulate, and how it's beneficial.


So to sum it all up, you call me an idiot that knows nothing about motors simply because I misspelled VTEC, you make no real technical contribution to in anything you post, you don't capitalize anything other than acronyms, you think having a type R automatically makes you an expert at VTEC, you cite the fact that you had an ITR and use it as evidence that VVT-i is completly different from VTEC, you also use iVTEC-I to back up your evidence when iVTEC-I is nothing close to anything you had nor is it close to any VTEC and it only shares the iVTEC's disuse of one intake valve at low rpm, and you still presume to call people idiots, and uhh.. you're still a moron.

Having extra time RoXX0rS

 

calm it down all of you or this is going to get locked.

please keep it civilized in here and dont turn it into a ____ fest

thanks
scott
SL Super Mod

 

Regardless of claims made.

35.28 miles per gallon is still pretty cool. Tho it's not as revolutionary as Honda tries to make it sound.

 

Considering my 96 saturn gets right at 38 mpg on the highway and 31 city..

but the IVTEC-I gets its props in the fact that it performs fairly well and still gets decent mileage. The mileage alone is nothing stellar.

And about it turning into a pi$$ing contest... the guy that started this thread started it as nothing but a pi$$ing contest.. so he should expect a harsh return.. so really the whole post should have been deleted to start with in that respect. But when he first opens his mouth calling people stupid on another thread, then comes and starts another citing an irrellevant video from a site that flamed HIM for not knowing much of what he talked about then it is expected that people retaliate He left plenty of room for people to attack back at him... But, everyone said thier part and I am sure the thread will die now.

 

give the kid a break... he found a spiffy VTAK video and wanted to impress everyone by showing his incredible google skills.

And what's this I hear about toyota not being on honda's level. Are we forgetting about the 2JZ engines?

Oh and there is no one cam that will operate efficiently through out the rpm range. That's why honda created the lift control and toyota whipped up the variable valve timing. Which both work pretty good in terms of saving gas.

Now have you noticed that the base RSX doesn't have the extra lift? All that puppy gets is the vti which sounds awefully familiar to toyota's concept. Only the rsx-s has the lift control...

 

interesting info here....what is really difference between VTEC and VVT-i like as simple one word......

like this.....

VTEC = ????

VVT-i = ????

thanxz! peace!

 

To be honest, I kind of wanted this thread locked or else I wouldn't've called anyone anything so many times.

In anycase, VTEC is VTEC and VVT-i is VVT-i.

VTEC isn't actually comparable to VVT-i. However, iVTEC is because of VTC. I found this awhile ago:

I don't know if this is 100% right but the important part is VTC works continuously to adjust the intake cam for fuel economy and performance. VVT-i does that too but in the tC and next gen IS2/350 it also works on the exhaust cam.

 

And since your 96 Saturn is a van it would be fair to compare them right?

Oh wait it's not a van? Gee that's fair to compare.

Let's compare your mileage to that of a pickup truck too. I think that might be fair.

Engineers...

 

And I wasnt trying to argue.. it was a loose comparison. I also went on to provide the benefits of the system, not bash it. And if you age the technologies between the two it looks less amazing, which was more my point, even with the weight difference... there are more points to consider if you look at it from a technical perspective.. for example.. So stop the poor attempt at an argument... make a point without being an a$$ about it like so many on here are... hence this thread. I dont wish to get into a retarted "I know more than you" argument. Why are people on here such a$$e$ about making their points? Instead of simply stating something it has to be "you idiots" or some sarcastic crap answer. I realize that there are a lot of 16 year olds that have for some reason never been taught respect or candor... but damn it gets old after a while. If you want to be sarcastic towards someone do it toward the ones that deserve it. I made no attack on anyone here other than the guy calling everyone idiots and trying to show his "knowledge". So back off or start a normal conversation. This one is a waste of time.

mouthy kids.....

 

outta hand. calm down people. its an internet forum. get over it. im locking this

scott