SaturnFans.com
saturnfans.com - classifieds - forums


Go Back   SaturnFans.com Forums > Reference Forums > Mods and Performance

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-04-2001, 11:47 PM   #1
Plastic Gravity
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Honda found the torque

It appears Honda remembered where its been hiding the torque all these years...the Intergra replacement(Integras were dropped in 01) the RSX Type S is out. I almost fell off my chair when I found out what kind of torque that thing makes...142 ft-lbs, from 2.0 liters. And 200 HP. So much for VTECH motors having no torque. That's 116%the output on 95% the displacement...and the Hp...164% the output of the SC2 DOHC motor. Were talking 100HP per liter. I'm jealous.

Serious motor, but what an ugly f-in car...terribly obvious that its really a Civic Coupe with fancy badges and a new front end. I can't say I was a fan of the Integra, either. Price? 24K. Plus, the new Civic Si supposedly is packing 165+Hp, and a $17,500 price.

Saturn needs a kick to the head, performance wise. Honda will sell a lot of these ugly little turds that go real fast. Current list on an SC2 is what, 15k? Even with adding the turbo internals, and some nice 16" wheels(sorry, the stockers are but-ugly)youre still in the 18K-19K range, add in the leather and other "must have" crap, and its still out the door at 21k...Saturn/Gm needs to freakin' wake up and smell the burnt rubber.

Oh, guess what else, the WRX(at $23K, BTW) got reviewed in this months Motor Trend, get this, 0-60 in 5.6 seconds...and the guys at MT complained the car needs a six-speed. Not from where I'm standing it doesn't. Its ugly, yes, but wow its fast.

Best,
-Mark
 
SaturnFans.com Sponsored Links
Old 06-05-2001, 01:55 AM   #2
benny
Junior Member
benny is on a distinguished road
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 26
Default

It is true that Saturns do not compete with this kind of hp, but then again, isn't the motor that is in both s cars from the late 80's? Honda brings out a new motor with new tech in it. No wonder why it's might quick. It's got to be a sweet ride. If GM produced new motors for many of it's cars, they would be fantastic. Then again, how many WRX's are there in comparison to the rest of the scoobies? The RSX will never be produced in the same number as the Civic, and it is tailored to the enthusiast in mind. If only Saturn wasn't strictly an economy car company...


Does a day go by without me wishing Saturn made a twin cam engine with variable cam timing or forced induction? Not too many, but when I bought the car I didn't have the Benjamins for the high spec car. Gas is expensive. So is insurance. For a military guy like me, I just would not be able to afford these kind of luxuries, however much I may wish for them. <img src="http://64.77.2.166/cgi-bin/UltraBoard/Images/Sad.gif" border="0" align="middle"> I was thinking upon reading the article of the RSX that I might be able to squeeze the motor into my car. Sure I would make solid mounts, and the motor would be on the other side, but I think it could work. (YEAH. If I had some CRACK money.) But I don't and I have my Saturn. A wonderful reliable mega car gelandewagon BEAST! Yep. I'm just takin up space.
benny is offline  
Old 06-05-2001, 12:49 PM   #3
SCTT
Member
SCTT is on a distinguished road
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 236
Default

I would like to see some HP and TQ curves on the RSX. I find it hard to believe that the HP and TQ is that high and flat. I bet it spikes up there for a sec and right back down. So it is the same old VTEC with more flash from HP numbers than actual performance. TurboSC2 can stomp on any Type R or RSX Type S with less HP! The 0-60 on that compact is only 7.2 according to Autoweek. The numbers are all a ploy. TurboSC2 might be able to turn high 5's with less spikey HP!!!
Laugh,

I laugh at VTEC. I want boost!!! Give us an S-series 2.2L turbo with 200HP! and will be laughing even WRX and V8 mustangs in the rear view. The HP and TQ curves would be flat as hell. We could get 5's in 0-60 and high 13's in quarter if the weight can be at 2500lbs a good 125lbs heavier than a new SC2.
Dayle
SCTT is offline  
Old 06-05-2001, 08:10 PM   #4
94sc2boy
Member
94sc2boy is on a distinguished road
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Morro Bay, CA
Posts: 482
 

1994 SC2
Default

Motor trend, "The RSX Type S power comes on in a strong, linear fashion, with none of the variable-valve peakiness of the Integra GSR"

Here is what sucks, "The base model has a 160Hp version of the 2.0L twin cam 16 valve I VTEC four should be priced just under 20k"

I kinda think saturn should do something, but i read that they lost 800 million last year, and I am V8 guy anyways, so, I love my saturn, but i dont' know if i would buy another one anyways and who knows how much longer they will stay in business.
94sc2boy is offline  
Old 06-05-2001, 08:37 PM   #5
todd
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Some good points on the issue ... here are my thoughts:

1. The RSX weighs 2800 lbs, so that 142-lb ft of torque doesn't equate to a huge torque advantage over the Saturn. Now that HP ...

2. Yes, Saturn is bleeding cash, losing thousands on each car it sells. The designs are essentially the same as the one that rolled off the line in 1991. Bloomberg recently had an article on the matter. Anyways, GM just committed 1.5 billion to the Tennessee plant. The thing is that Saturn is largely the only GM car that people look at when considering the imports. So look for Saturn to begin to make more of a push to claim back some territory that GM has ceded to the imports. We'll see.
 
Old 06-05-2001, 10:24 PM   #6
Plastic Gravity
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

<blockquote><hr><font size="1">Original Post:</font><!--1-->
I kinda think saturn should do something, but i read that they lost 800 million last year, and I am V8 guy anyways, so, I love my saturn, but i dont' know if i would buy another one anyways and who knows how much longer they will stay in business.<hr></blockquote>

I'd like to see that 800 million dollar paper trail. That's "business math"...the way its figured has little to do with real sales revenue and operating costs. I wouldn't be surprised if that 800million figured in development costs for new model, return on investment, payback time, lost sales from what the L was predicted at, and some outrageously inflated wages and benefits estimates. Saturn's not even a individual company, they are division of GM. They don't report financial numbers to the public..so anything like this is just an accountants guess, with a mean spin for shock value.

When you take into account the outlay for new models, especially if its an ambitious plan, its pretty easy to rack up 500+million in expenses for the new models. If Saturn had a REAL operating deficit of nearly a billion dollars, they wouldn't be around anymore.
 
Old 06-05-2001, 10:40 PM   #7
Plastic Gravity
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

<blockquote><hr><font size="1">Original Post:</font><!--1-->
1. The RSX weighs 2800 lbs, so that 142-lb ft of torque doesn't equate to a huge torque advantage over the Saturn. Now that HP ....<hr></blockquote>

2800 is pretty pudgy for a car that size. I used to own an Opel GT that wieghed in at 1950lbs...that little 1.9 liter engine had NO problem moving that car around with authority. Someone here said 200HP from a turbo'd new 2.2L...I don't see that being much of a problem, unless there are durability issues. Sign me up. I think the biggest hurdle isn't an engineering issue, its a bureaucratic one. Somebody at corporate has the plans all glued shut withing massive amounts of GM Genuine Red Tape.

Saturn does need to do something, performance wise. The OLOA cars were a great idea...I wish we were hearing that someone other than Wazz and Chris think so too.
 
Old 06-06-2001, 12:07 AM   #8
DBLW1
Advanced Member
DBLW1 is on a distinguished road
 
DBLW1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 946
Default

2800 is pudgy? IMO, 2800 lbs ain't bad. Consider that the Mitsubishi Eclipse GS 4cyl is over 2900lbs, the VW GTI 1.8t is almost 2900, and VW Beetle 1.8t over 2900. Pudgy is the Olds Alero/Pontiac Grand Am 4cyl hovering around and over 3000lbs.
DBLW1 is offline  
Old 06-06-2001, 11:11 AM   #9
DM101
Junior Member
DM101 is on a distinguished road
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 26
Default

There is no reason why a 100HP/L engine couldn't be offered by Saturn. Even Ford is offering a focus model that makes over 170 HP.
I think that the line has been drawn and it's only a matter of time before we see if Saturn steps up or not. Saturn is a few years behind with a new product compared to the market. If they don't offer a real barn burner from the get go Saturn will never be anything more than another average GM brand.
DM101 is offline  
Old 06-07-2001, 10:52 PM   #10
Saturnmeister
Senior Member
Saturnmeister is on a distinguished road
 
Saturnmeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,409
Default

IMO, 2800 for a sub-compact IS bad...Alero/Grand Am are considerably larger (not that much smaller than the L-Series, actually) than the Eclipse, GTI (Golf, I assume) and New Beetle at least. Cars THAT small shouldn't need to be damn near 3,000 lbs - even the SC2 has gotten porky at about 2436 lbs (used to be under 2400!). That extra 400 lbs is like having 2 big beefy friends in the car with you (ever notice how your Saturn - or any other small car for that matter - is less "sprightly" loaded up with a couple of extra heavyweights?). Having the car weigh that much more is like getting that kind of performance when you're ALONE in the car! That extra hp is necessary just to move the excess bulk of a car weighing that much more!

Hell, the SL2 SEDAN only weighs 2,403 lbs (FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS less than that Golf GTI!!)...that kind of added weight better bring some ROOM with it as far as I'm concerned! If I'm gonna pay for the gas to move an extra 400-500 lbs every time I drive the car, I at least want to be comfortable! Look at it this way - those cars you mentioned are only about 322-422 lbs away from the weight of a V6 L-Series WAGON, which at least GIVES you something for the extra lbs (room and comfort!).
Saturnmeister is offline  
Old 06-07-2001, 11:44 PM   #11
Plastic Gravity
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

<blockquote><hr><font size="1">Original Post:</font><!--1-->
IMO, 2800 for a sub-compact IS bad...Alero/Grand Am are considerably larger (not that much smaller than the L-Series, actually) than the Eclipse, GTI (Golf, I assume) and New Beetle at least. Cars THAT small shouldn't need to be damn near 3,000 lbs - even the SC2 has gotten porky at about 2436 lbs (used to be under 2400!).<hr></blockquote>

Thanks for backing my up there, Saturnmeister. Yes, 2800lbs is pudgy. The Acura RSX is really just a Honda Civic Coupe, and we all are familiar with the size of these cars...they are pretty small. The last time I parked next to one, my SC was noticeably longer(and I have a short wheelbase coupe). I'm surprised to see that the new SC2's are that light yet...I figured they had to be in the near 2600lbs bracket by now, with the longer wheelbase and the third door...I'd have guessed 2550.

Best,
-Mark
 
Old 06-08-2001, 01:31 AM   #12
DBLW1
Advanced Member
DBLW1 is on a distinguished road
 
DBLW1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 946
Default

<blockquote><hr>
&gt;&gt;Hell, the SL2 SEDAN only weighs 2,403 lbs (FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS less than that Golf GTI!!)...that kind of added weight better bring some ROOM with it as far as I'm concerned!&lt;&lt;
<hr></blockquote>

I don't know the complete specs, but the Alero/Grand Am, new Civic, RSX, and GTI (Golf) are all classified a Compacts based on interior volume by the government, versus Sub-Compact as the older Civics, Saturn SC, and Eclipse. Also, keep in mind, the extra lbs in the GTI/Golf gets you a turbo charger, upgraded suspension stabalizer, 4 wheel disc brakes with ABS standard, standard moonroof, and a full size spare. Its straightback hatch/mini-wagon configuration does add weight and in turn give you more room than a regular sedan or coupe, as you wanted. You have a wagon, you should've known that. Since the RSX is based on the new Civic coupe which got a boost in interior volume, the RSX is expected to be longer and roomier than the former Integra and the current SubCompact SC2.
Check out the government vehicle classification here: <a href="http://www.fueleconomy.gov" target="_blank"><!--auto-->http://www.fueleconomy.gov</a><!--auto-->

Of course, this thread isn't about which is more comfortable or has more interior room or even about gas mileage or cost, but where's the performance in Saturn's compact? Pudgy or not, those little 2700++lb compact sports do have more performance in mind than Saturn's SC2. While the Acura, Eclipse, and the VW's (sub)compacts are breaking 0-60 in the lower 7's, the LIGHTER SC2 and even the SL2 are trailing in the 8's. Check it out, I'm looking at the Road Test Digest of my latest Car and Driver issue, and the HEAVIER VW GTI 1.8t goes zoom to 60mph in 7.3, whereas the LIGHTER SL2 picks up to 60mph in 8.4. Even the new compact Civic EX matches acceleration with lighter Saturn SL2 and has more interior volume than the subcompact SC2. Saturn is 10 years in the making, and yet it still lingers with an econocar attitude about its S models.
DBLW1 is offline  
Old 06-08-2001, 06:23 PM   #13
SIYAM
Advanced Member
SIYAM is on a distinguished road
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: www.qksltwo.com
Posts: 842
Default

As far as vtec's not having torque, vtec was made to enhance torque and power accross the board. vtec allows for two cam lobes so that you get good torque down low, and then when that cam runs out of steam, the next one (more aggressive) picks up where the other left off. effectively, you get a two faced engine, one with good torque and responce and fuel economy down low, and another that is a high rpm screamer. the saturn engine is missing the latter. hondas have excellent torque for their size. they don't have a lot of ultimate torque due to their size, but to say they don't have torque is to be blind to the fact that they are simply limited by their displacement. infact, if you want to say that, then saturn engines don't have torque cause a lude 2.2 doch vtec has much more than a saturn engine does. you just have to put things in perspective. saturn if far behind honda in engine and driveterain(sp?) technology. face it. that is why honda is a segment leader. saturn is not.

thats not to say i don't like my saturn, i do. but i am realistic enough to know that saturn has a long, long way to go to become competetive. a third door, trendy yellow paint, and special edition badges aren't going to make the car cool. its like a factory "rice" car, all show, no go.

and that brings me to my next point, we are comparing the wrong cars. the integra in a different category than the saturn. and the sc2 is the same as an sl2, so they really are in the same category. check the june 2k issue of car and driver. 13 econocars are compared. thats right, the saturn is an econocar, along with the prizm, daewoo nubria, neon, focus zts, civic lx, elantra, sephia, protege, mirage, sentra, esteem, and echo. no integ, no vw, no celica. those are sport coupes. saturn doesn't make a sport coupe. it makes sporty econo sedans, wagons, and coupes, but not true, sport oriented drivers. in its class, the saturn is the fastest, barely edging out the prism(corolla), and hyundai. the integ, rsx, prelude, gti 1.8t and vr6, celica, wrx, 2.5rs, and tiburon are much more sporty, and will hand an s series a woopin at the track. i don't know what i'm saying other than to just respect other cars for what they offer, and put everything in perspective. i really wish that saturn was competetive, but it's not. the coupe is way too expensive. by the way, the saturn placed ninth in the contest. i think that that is what it deserves. maybe it will motivate saturn.
Ian
SIYAM is offline  
Old 06-09-2001, 12:42 PM   #14
Plastic Gravity
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Vtec's traditionally have not been know for the torque they produce...everyone marvels at how much HP they produce for the size of the motor, and don't realize that it has no torque. More importantly, the torque that they do have is way up in the powerband. Not useful for everyday driving.

I noticed someone is throwing the Prelude into the mix here...now there's another fat car, 3100lbs. This thing needs all 195Hp. Its 7.0sec to 60 time is nice, but by the 1/4 this thing is taking 15.5 seconds...there's lightly moded G1 SC2's around here that can match that. And it costs 30K with very little in the way of options. Did I mention its ugly, this thing was hit with an ugly stick, dozens of times. The last prelude was a much better looking car, but boy was the interior small. I test drove one, and with the seat all the way back, my knees kept hitting that ugly, your father's oldsmobile-esque dashboard. It drove nice, felt solid, but the suspension had that jiggly feel...like the car is never happy no matter how smooth the road. For 30K I'd rather have the Audi TT coupe, it performs the same, but what a beautifull car.

A VW GTi is not a sports coupe...nor is it reasonably priced.

The Tiburon is on par with the SL2's in acceleration,(0 to 60 mph in 8.7 seconds,1/4 16.7 seconds at 83 mph) so even though it has 16 more horses, it can't use them all that well because the car wieghs 2700lbs! And its not cheap by any means at 18grand.

Do I want Saturn to do better, yes. Right now, the 01 SC2 is easily the best styled car of all the coupes it competes against. Its two advantages over anyother car are its 3rd door, and the plastic body panels that will always stay looking good. Its time Saturn gave it the muscle to back up the good looks. Saturn needs to shoot for cars like the Celica GT, the Beetle Turbo, The Eclipse, and Civic Si if it ever wants to be anything more than just a cute car with friendly dealers.
 
Old 06-09-2001, 12:46 PM   #15
Saturnmeister
Senior Member
Saturnmeister is on a distinguished road
 
Saturnmeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,409
Default

I guess I could have clarified my point better, which is that cars that small shouldn't be that heavy, period. Regardless of what class or equipment or how sporty/what market segment each targets, the simple fact is if you put the kind of horsepower and torque offered by some of those turbo or VTEC drivetrains into a car weighing in hundreds of pounds LESS, it would seriously scream! My complaint is, for cars that small, why so damn porky?! Imagine how fleet footed they COULD be if they were to shed 400-500 lbs! That's why Saturn has a tremendous opportunity...produce a turbo SC2, and it will probably blow the doors off those competitors, because it starts without the extra blubber to haul around! The Golf "configuration" shouldn't mean that much weight-wise - the Saturn SW2 is a FOUR DOOR wagon and still weighs hundreds of pounds less - nor do turbos weigh that much. Saturn has offered (I'm not even talking about the latest models, since certainly things have been going downhill what with brakes becoming exclusively drum, ugly and heavy 3rd doors being added to coupes, etc.) similar size cars with most of the same types of features, like sunroofs, 4 wheel discs w/ABS, etc. None of theirs have been anywhere NEAR 3,000 bloody pounds in cars that size!

What I'm saying is that they need to trim the FAT! As for the current Saturn S-Series offerings, they wouldn't even be shopped by me if I were looking for a small car, because they have no 4-wheel disc brakes, and have gotten too porky looking IMO (in terms of the coupe), in addition to having that ugly rear access door (if I'm looking for convenience, I'll buy the SEDAN or WAGON, coupes with more than 2 doors are no longer COUPES, much less "Sport" Coupes!).
Saturnmeister is offline  
Old 06-09-2001, 02:05 PM   #16
DBLW1
Advanced Member
DBLW1 is on a distinguished road
 
DBLW1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 946
Default

No torque in VTEC? You must recheck your studying. VTEC motor produces a vitually flat torque curve from 3000rpm and up in the 4cylinder engines. Here's some links for you:
<a href="http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/Technical/VTEC.htm" target="_blank"><!--auto-->http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/Technical/VTEC.htm</a><!--auto-->
<a href="http://www.lathi.net/honda-faq/vtec.html" target="_blank"><!--auto-->http://www.lathi.net/honda-faq/vtec.html</a><!--auto-->
Toyota (VVti) and Ford (ZTec) knows the value and advantage of variable valve timing and has implementated similar system in the production models.

Just a few corrections on that Prelude analyst. First, the Prelude base model is just under 3000lbs (2954 lbs). The slower selling Prelude SH trim with the Active Torque Transfer System (ATTS) and standard spoiler tips the scale at 3,042 lbs. The msrp of the base Prelude is actually starts at 24k, even the SH trim is only 26.5k, but because of its slow sales and phase out, subtrack 2-3 thousand from msrp for its going price. Both the base and SH trim comes fully loaded with the only option is auto transmission in the base model. IMO, the double wishbone suspension is much better setup than the struts found in most of its the sports coupe in its class. I can't believe your complaining about a 200hp 4 cylinder stock Prelude getting in the 7's and 15's (1/4). Have you even seen the potential for mods for it? The Audi TT is a extremely beautiful car, but its certainly in a different status than any of the cars we brought up, and by the way, it's weight STARTS at just over 2,900 lbs.

As for the GTi, you haven't seen the craze in England and Germany with that little runt. I don't know what you consider as a "sports coupe", because the GTI covers both word in that class. It's FAST and comes only in a 2 DOOR configuration. Isn't that a sports coupe? There are plenty of VW enthusist magazine that demonstrates the many potential for modding a Golf/GTI. The GTI is one of only a few that represents the Euro models in Compact Sports Car magazines and competition. I opened up a imported European magazine, can't remember which one, reporting on the Mecedes C-series sport hatchback, and at the end of the review, they list all the hatchback competitor. Out of all the Euro hatchback, they picked the Euro-spec VW GTI VR6 quattro over the Saab, BMW, and even the Mercedes hatchbacks.

I'm trying not to purposely put down Saturn, but I have much respect for a lot of cars out there. Each has its pro's and cons, but the Saturn SC definitely needs to pick up out of the econocar perception.

To Saturnmeister: There's a lot of thing that each car "shoudn't be". I can list out a lot of "shouldn't be" for the SC, but one thing that the SC SHOULD BE is more SPORT than coupe. Let's not compare stock competitor to a modded, out of warranty turbo SC2. For only a few hundred dollars, you can chip a GTI 1.8t and get some serious increase in performance. Just remember, the 150 hp GTI's 1.8t engine is the same 1.8t in the 170hp Passat, not saying you will get that 170hp on a chipped GTI 1.8t. Again, heavy or not, the lighter stock SC2 cannot even perform in the same league as all the other heavier competitors to in the compact coupes class.

I will agree though, Saturn does have potential and I'm not a big fan of that third door SC configuration. I find the SC to look more busy with each iteration. Beauty is very subjective, and I would give its current exterior looks a C- with its over dramatic swooshy lines.
DBLW1 is offline  
Old 06-09-2001, 02:15 PM   #17
DBLW1
Advanced Member
DBLW1 is on a distinguished road
 
DBLW1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 946
Default

By the way, GTI comes in a VR6 trim with a 2.8L V6. One of the few, if not the only, compact sports coupe to come with a smooth 6cylinder motor.
DBLW1 is offline  
Old 06-09-2001, 05:59 PM   #18
SIYAM
Advanced Member
SIYAM is on a distinguished road
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: www.qksltwo.com
Posts: 842
Default

Sure, the lude is heavy, but its fast. what do you mean, "only" 15.5. it'll hand a saturn a woopin at the track. i have been beat by many ludes at the strip, they are very fast. and they are nice cars, too. you can't even start to compare a saturn to a prelude.

the saturn is rated at 8.5/16.5@84mph. the tiburon at 8.1/15.9. hyundai wins. not saying i like it, just puttin out the facts.(c&d, june 2k)

the gti isn't a sport coupe? damn right, it is a Hot Hatch. it created the entire segment, that which is now operated by cars like integs, celica's, si's, se-r's, and a barage of euro hatches. the gti is the definitive car of affordable performance. and they are fast. plush. unfortunately, they have become soft.

It is very clear to me that saturn is trying to play a game that it doesn't know much about. it is aiming for the trendy buyer. what it needs is to broaden its market and serve its target audience. if they are trying for a "performance image", offer more than yellow paint and black badges.

Ian
SIYAM is offline  
Old 06-09-2001, 06:04 PM   #19
SIYAM
Advanced Member
SIYAM is on a distinguished road
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: www.qksltwo.com
Posts: 842
Default

and whoever said that vtec motors have no torque is a perfect example of "ignorance being bliss". it is a widely, easily, and understandably misunderstood point. as said before, the vtec effect allows for a really nice torque curve. hondas don't have that much torque compared to other engines, but if you take a honda 1.8 and a saturn 1.9, you will see that our advantage is nill. if you take a saturn 2.2 and a h22, you will see that once again. of course a b16 or d16 doesn't have as much torque as a saturn 1.9. but compare comparable engines(which i think is hard cause i don't think saturn engines can compare to hondas tech).
Ian

just my 2 cents, take it for what its worth
SIYAM is offline  
Old 06-10-2001, 11:41 AM   #20
Plastic Gravity
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well, this thread has certainly entered the grumpy phase. The name calling is certainly appreciated. Ian, I though this was a place where discussions didn't have to resort to this kind of behaviour. If I can pry some of you away from the VTEC alter for a minute, allow me to add these comments.

Next time you are at the Vtec fanboy websites, actually look where the torque peak is...if you can find an actual dyno sheet. Its up around 6 or 7 grand. Do you wish to rev the motor like that all the time just to go down to the corner to get some milk? Good torque comes on low...real low, 2K+ range, and stays flat till the HP comes on. I am not begruding Honda's nifty technology, but before you call anyone ignorant, perhaps you should do more than repeating someone elses hype. Compared to other engines of similar HP output, the torque of a Vtec motor is almost non-existent. VTEC was not designed to make more torque than a motor of that size would normally develope, the normal lobes are for economy, emmissions, and smooth running. Have you ever driven a car with a hot cam profile? I owned one. They idle for crap, and they eat fuel like crazy for a four banger. VTEC is a compromise, a way of allowing the hotcams to come on at high rpms but disappear lower down. The secondary lobes are for better breathing at high RPM, which despite what you have said makes these cars very high strung. That's not entirely a bad thing...but its the truth. And if Saturn offered something similar I think it would be great. Folks here complain about the noise and vibration in an early S series? Get in for a ride in a GSR....folks overlook all that because the car really goes like hell once the vtech comes on near the end of the tachometer.
 
 

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Honda Vue torque converter 92DualCam Vue Tech 6 05-13-2010 09:32 AM
Nut Torque Specs for 1999 SL2 Torque Axis Mount todd8 S-Series General 3 05-01-2005 01:34 AM
Who needs a honda? Letalis Ion General 8 03-09-2004 06:52 AM
Honda engine - Honda 5 speed automatic? saturnfreak01 Vue General 3 02-09-2004 09:04 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:09 AM.

Advanced Forum Search | Advanced Photo Search


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SaturnFans.com. The Saturn Enthusiasts Site.