Tuner Trash Talk

[F.Zamataki]

i love going to a social gathering and starting up fueled conversations with people i do not know over what is faster, what motor has more potential, boost over cylinders, 4 banger VS V8, all that shizz. it gets interesting. i for one, am all about the imports. either L4 or L6, is the only way to go....

so ill start off and hopefully spark something.

hondas are torqueless, their engines belong on motorcycles.
Muscle cars are outdated.
V-8 and over is unpractical (4 can go just as fast)
Why increase displacement if you can just add forced induction.
Boost is the only Replacement for Displacement, seeing as how no matter how big your engine gets, if you boost it, itll only go faster....and you can only make motors so big.
other topics i would like to cover. what do you have to say? lets try and get an intelligent debate going!

 

[Ring_Berkut]

Well, i disagree with boosting everything up, because you want a certain performance level and if you can obtain it just by NA tuning the car why not do it, i know it's cheaper to just turbo it but for the level of performance you may need, the car with the turbo will have lag and the engine will have deadpoints before and after the turbo enters, that will limit the revband. If you do need more performance, than yes, turbo it like TVR did with their Typhon, they couldn't achieve the bhp level they required with the NA engine so they turbo'd it to 580bhp.

About 4 cyl being as fast as a V8, try to make any 4 cyl be as fast a M5, the new V10 or the last, the V8. I didn't enter in the V12 territory because i didn't even have to.

 

[Goomba]

The Accord V6 has 212 lb-ft of torque, the S2000 has 160ish but I would bet the gears are very, very short and make up for the lowish torque, Acura RL has 230 lb-ft or torque... I could go on, but you see what I'm talking about. Civics, yes, not a lot of torque, but they really don't need 'em. They're an economy car.

Muscle cars are outdated... Along with just about everything else built in their time.

But like you, I'm pretty much only an Import enthusiast. I don't have anything against American car companies and their sports cars, but it's just not how I got into the whole car thing. As for family sedans and economy cars, they're just not my cup o' tea.

But yeah.... My Tuner Trash Talk? Uhm... I beat all the other stock WRXs at the last autocross? Huzzah (I think)!

 

[1X83Z]

The Accord V6 has 212 lb-ft of torque

Yeah, at 5000RPM. Mate that engine to the automatic transmission and you'll rarely see peak torque. Actually, the problem with that engine is peak power - 240 @ 6250. Get the Accord V6 sedan, which is automatic-only and doesn't have a manual shift gate, and you're probably left out on that one - I've rarely seen automatics that get up there with any consistency, making peak power on that car something of an unachievable fantasy.

 

[ShobThaBob]

hondas are torqueless, their engines belong on motorcycles. yeah, they are torqueless, and they make great motorcycle engines...so?
Muscle cars are outdated.By.....they still do what they're supposed to do - provide lively straightline acceleration via rear wheels at a nice price
V-8 and over is unpractical (4 can go just as fast) There is no replacement for displacement
Why increase displacement if you can just add forced induction.Because after you increase displacement, you can still add forced induction
Boost is the only Replacement for Displacement, seeing as how no matter how big your engine gets, if you boost it, itll only go faster....and you can only make motors so big.Yup, and once they get so big, guess what you can do....boost em
other topics i would like to cover. what do you have to say? lets try and get an intelligent debate going!

Eh - boring questions with easy answers.

 

[Duke]

I think "intelligent debate" and "tuner trash talk" are mutually exclusive terms.

 

[F.Zamataki]

lets try to stay on topic...

 

[Gil]

1. Hondas are not so much torqueless, as they have a very narrow powerband. If you can remember that, you won't get your ass handed to you by some old dude in an Escort GT. (that was me, by the way )

2. And yes some of Honda's best engines are indeed on motorcycles.

3. Muscle cars are an old concept, but they are by no means outdated.
If you think a Civic, or even a 240SX has more "personality" than a 1966 Chevelle, or a 1970 Dodge Challenger, you not only need to rethink your position, but young people have, sadly, slipped almost to a new low if most of your friends think as you do. Hopefully, they will get to hear an engine over 5.0 liters, or at the very least, more than one bank of cylinders (numbering greater than 6) thru a set of Bassani or Borla pipes and be redeemed.

4. If V-8's are "over" and impractical, why does every large company that makes a truck offer a V-8 as the base engine or as an upgrade? Because RPM doesn't pull boat trailers, torque does. No matter how you cut it, forced induction is not viable on a tow vehicle, unless that vehicle already has a fairly powerful powerplant in the first place.
So while forced induction may be a supplement to displacement, it is not, and will never be a replacement for displacement.

5. The reason behind large displacement motors has a little to do with power, but a lot more to do with reliability, and easy maintenance. You can treat most V-8's with a fair amount of indifference. As long as the oil is changed every 5-7 thousand miles, they can live pretty much forever. A blown 4-banger, is like a live pet. It needs you as much as you need it. It can be tempermental, mechanically unreliable, and a pain in the ass to live with as a daily driver. And if I'm gonna get lousy mileage anyway, I want the power on demand, throaty growl, pavement rumbling, hairy-chested, even has torque with an automatic trans V-8.

 

[Der Alta]

And if I'm gonna get lousy mileage anyway, I want the power on demand, throaty growl, pavement rumbling, hairy-chested, even has torque with an automatic trans V-8.

Can I nominate this as quote of the year?

AO

 

[humbo]

Different type and size engines exist for a reason. I mean if you just look at peak horsepower then yes the little 4 cylinders would be adequate, but you also have to look at where the power and torque is made.

And performance wise muscle cars are outdated compared to modern sports cars, they don't tend to possess favourable handling characteristics, and even in a straight line (they're strong point I guess) their weight hinders them. You can't get the sound, looks, and overall style anywhere else though.

 

[Duke]

Thanks, Gil. After going a few rounds on the Opinions Board lately, I just didn't have the strength or patience to do all that. Excellent job, and I'll second the nomination for Quote of the Year.

 

[Gil]

Further, as added by my 19 year-old:
Sometimes a bigger engine is just more impressive.

Alex and Duke, thanks for the nomination.
Can't have these whipper-snappers disrespecting V-8's.

 

[Cano]

We love Gil. I'll third that nomination. Indeed I do.
as for the "talk" refering to the "tuner" part of the title, and refering also to the "muscle cars are outdated" part, yeah, they are, because they were made 35-40 years ago. but when you "tune" them with the technological advances that have been developed over the past 35-40 years you dont have a muscle car, you have a sports car for the new millenimum that, if prepared well, can out-class many a new sports car. And Im NOT talking about 1/4 mile slips, they can do that in STOCK form (: Im talking about stopping, turning, revving, accelerating, handling etc etc better than a M5, Porsche, Z06 or Skyline, and looking better than all of those together. and even for a fraction of the money! weight? please. they weigh in the same as a skyline, and only a few pounds more than a vette, and they can be made to perform incredibly. These comparisons are ALWAYS idiotic, because its SO easy to say that they are outdated, but no one ever gives them the oportunity. dont worry, a well-tuned and updated muscle car will take that chance from your hands. Just wait, its getting bigger and bigger.

Cano

 

[Gil]

The Accord V6 has 212 lb-ft of torque, the S2000 has 160ish but I would bet the gears are very, very short and make up for the lowish torque, Acura RL has 230 lb-ft or torque... I could go on, but you see what I'm talking about. Civics, yes, not a lot of torque, but they really don't need 'em. They're an economy car.

Muscle cars are outdated... Along with just about everything else built in their time.

But like you, I'm pretty much only an Import enthusiast. I don't have anything against American car companies and their sports cars, but it's just not how I got into the whole car thing. As for family sedans and economy cars, they're just not my cup o' tea.

But yeah.... My Tuner Trash Talk? Uhm... I beat all the other stock WRXs at the last autocross? Huzzah (I think)!

I just went thru and re-read this and take umbrage to a couple of things.
The Accord may indeed make 212 lb/ft of torque. But Honda's VTEC motors come on to valve "changeover" at 6000 RPM. If redline is at 6250 how you gonna work with that? Add the automatic, as Doug said, and you've got a "grocery getter" or a "mom taxi". The Civic, is the tuner car of choice for most youth because it's pretty popular, and good looking (in a bland sort of way), and the paragon of reliabilty (if not too "worked") The Chevelle and Goat were the same way back in the day, but they had the 396, and 389 tri-power for motorvation. Way more potential, and stronger from the factory than any 1.6 meant for the street.

And before you start dissin' on stuff that was made back in the day...Keep in mind that a lot of the music you listen to is made by guys playing guitars that were made in the '60's and before. Why? because they happen to be better than the new stuff. Cars that are "muscular" today follow the same "formula" that they did back in the 60's. The Mustang is still a Front-engine rear drive V-8. Yeah, the hot one has forced induction, but it still makes it's power from about 1000 rpm.
The new GTO and the Old GTO, Still Front Engine-rear drive with a honkin' V-8 in the nose. Do I need to bring more examples to the table? How about the Dodge Daytona Charger going from a honking V-8 to a Front-drive turbo? How long has that been out of production? Why, because if tuned for big power, you have a grenade under your hood.
And to bring it home for your generation, the best Drifters out there are using Front-rear platforms. And one of the best is an "all-motor" AE-86. Probably because it has been tuned to come on power lower in the RPM-band.
I guess this a good example of not fixing something that ain't broke.

Like it or not, you will spend more money and time on a 4-cyl. to make it beat a V-8. But it is your money, and your time. But I'd like to be there at the track the day you slap your forehead and say: "I shoulda had a V-8!"

I also like imports. If I had the garage space and a wife that would put up with it I would love to have a Volkswagen GTI VR6. I'm also quite fond of the '95-'98 240SX. However, I'm not big on the SR-20 swap. Why? because the "big" 2.4 makes more torque than horsepower. To go "all-motor" on that particular motor would make minimal impact on reliability.
And I have loved Nissans since I got my first look at a modified 510.
But if I'm gonna have a fast four, I want it to be fast, but I want some sembelance of economy, and dead-bang reliability.
I've been stranded by broken cars and it's not something that I want happening any more frequently than necessary. My philosophy is simple: build an outrageous turbo 4-cylinder motor, (cause it'll have to be outrageous to beat a sanely modified, but powerful V-8) invest in a good cell-phone and a great pair of walking shoes, you'll be using both.

 

[F.Zamataki]

have you seen the Head to Head article with the new supercharged stang and the subaru wrx sti? it was in HOT ROD magazine, and even those guys admit the defeat...the subaru and the stand are equal in all aspects of speed, yet the scoob has half the displacement, 3/4's of the gas guzzling, and 3 times the handling prowess. sure you can make a muscle car hande good, just check out the Track tuned Camaro in last months HOT ROD issue.

muscle cars CAN'T handle, especially older ones. you say that you must pour craploads of money into a 4 banger for it to beat a V-8. sure, you may be correct, but in the same rate, it would take you a s*itload of money and work to make an older muscle car handle EVENLY with an import. to make it handle better than an import is just a massive feat.

then we use this to say that, sure, you have a V8 with massive straight line acceleration and top end power out of the factory....amazing, however, why not have a car with equally impressive speed, yet it can handle its way around anything? imports are at an advantage.
They come standard with impressive handling and power, yet making them go as fast as a V8 is easily within reach.
you buy a V8, and you can go fast straight, but then you must pour money into making it even come close to handling like an import. imports have both standard. muscle cars have a very broad and unbalanced personality.

i ask you one question... sure you can make some one piss their pants doing a 1/4 mile at 7 seconds, but you can make someone **** their pants by flying down a track hitting turns at 3 figures....

when it comes to money, imports kick ass in power, pwn all in handling, yet with some cash put into them, they can be stronger than most if not all muscle cars. and you wont literally be watching the needle on you fuel guage dissapear. its like comparing harleys with hayabusas........its no competition.

 

[1X83Z]

muscle cars CAN'T handle, especially older ones. you say that you must pour craploads of money into a 4 banger for it to beat a V-8. sure, you may be correct, but in the same rate, it would take you a s*itload of money and work to make an older muscle car handle EVENLY with an import. to make it handle better than an import is just a massive feat.

I think you're missing the point of a muscle car, but then again, you write in pink. Current 4-cylinder cars have had forty years of technology to improve upon muscle cars, in both handling and acceleration. Not surprisingly, they handle better. But muscle cars are brilliant straight-line machines, not track cars. And in large part, muscle car owners don't want a track car, either.

Incidentally, when I make the '4-cylinder vs muscle car' comparison in my head, why do I think I'm making a Honda Civic sedan vs Plymouth Barracuda Hemi comparison? It's irrational.

They come standard with impressive handling and power, yet making them go as fast as a V8 is easily within reach.

You're right. Let's say you have a muscle car and, for my benefit, a 2003 Honda Accord EX sedan. If you put about $6000 into that Honda (and we're pretending here), let's say you could equal the straight line capabilities of that muscle car. I bet you're pretty happy with yourself!

But what you're forgetting is that the $6000 could also be spent tuning the muscle car - and if you put the same amount of money into both vehicles, you're right back where you started. So yeah, it's within reach for your Civic EX to be as quick as a muscle car, but it's within the same reach for the muscle car to simply blow away the Civic.

 

[Josh]

V-8 and over is unpractical (4 can go just as fast)
Why increase displacement if you can just add forced induction.
Boost is the only Replacement for Displacement
]

4 cylinder cars can go just as fast as 8 cylinder cars? That's weird. Where are all the 4 second 4 cylinder funny cars, and top fuel dragsters?

And I don't care what any 'tard says, there simply is no replacement for displacement.

 

[Gil]

muscle cars CAN'T handle, especially older ones. you say that you must pour craploads of money into a 4 banger for it to beat a V-8. sure, you may be correct, but in the same rate, it would take you a s*itload of money and work to make an older muscle car handle EVENLY with an import. to make it handle better than an import is just a massive feat.

Have you never heard of the Corvette? How about the AC Cobra? The Imports that run/ran with them came from Italy. I know you might not consider them muscle cars, but the Cobra could run from 0-100-0 in under 14 seconds. That's muscle in my book. And even a 'Vette with a big-block is no slouch when it comes to handling.
The SCCA used to have a racing class for Muscle and Pony cars back in 1970.
Cars like the Mustang, AMX, Camaro, and Charger used to run quite respectably on road courses.

i ask you one question... sure you can make some one piss their pants doing a 1/4 mile at 7 seconds, but you can make someone **** their pants by flying down a track hitting turns at 3 figures....

I know for a fact that a 1970 Ford Country Squire Wagon with 429, and the towing package will do just over 100 mph in second gear with the C-6 Automatic.
That will cause most sane folks to have lumpy underwear. And it would take most clover leafs at speeds that would also cause loss of sphincter control. And it was a basically stock, full size wagon. Imagine if it had been a 1970 Challenger, armed with a 383 Magnum and a 4-bbl. with stiffer than stock suspension. Or maybe a Boss Mustang. I'm talking about an LTD wagon!

when it comes to money, imports kick ass in power, pwn all in handling, yet with some cash put into them, they can be stronger than most if not all muscle cars. and you wont literally be watching the needle on you fuel guage dissapear. its like comparing harleys with hayabusas........its no competition.

I've been around since people were building up hot VW's and I remember the number one complaint being going from a decent grocery getter, to having great handling and speed, but getting 12 MPG. I had a friend with a hot 510 and he got crappy mileage as well. And they still wouldn't touch that Country Squire in a straight line. This is important because many more people are drag racing than road racing.
You talk about how great the WRX STi is as far as handling. Stock it pulls 0.88 on the Skidpad. A Stock Cobra pulls 0.90. Per Road & Track (May '04) Road Test Summaries. Also both cars pulled a 0-60 of 4.9 sec. Both turned a 13.3 in the 1/4 mile, with the Mustang turning a faster trap speed.
In the Slalom the WRX, bests the Cobra, by 8 mph, but the design of the WRX in nearly new. The Mustang has had the same underpinnings since 1979. And if you look at the summaries in the back of the July issue you'll note that the Mach 1 Mustang is only 3 MPH off the Subaru in the Slalom, despite a slower 0-60 time, and its $4,000 less expensive. I bet if I added that $4,000 back into the Mach one, (supercharger and suspension) It would best the WRX. Hell, it could just have come down to the Subie having better tires.
If you dropped that $4,000 into a Civic, it still wouldn't run with the V-8 boys, and it would be more prone to mechanical failure.

Don't get me wrong the WRX is another of my favorite cars. But even it is in a relatively small group of cars that can hang with the V-8's from the factory, with Forced induction. Most of the rest of them that can hang cost considerably more.

And how come you haven't addressed point #4 in my first post in this thread?

 

[Mike Rotch]

That's weird. Where are all the 4 second 4 cylinder funny cars, and top fuel dragsters?

Two great quotes in one inflamatory thread 👍

 

[F.Zamataki]

what about six cylinder.....your american sixes do nothing, you simply resort to adding 2 more cylinders, while at the same time, nissan, toyota, bmw, L6's are amazing motors. yes ill discuss the Skyline. R32, the original "godzilla" outperformed anything in its time because of its powerplant, the RB26DETT. we will also throw in "classic import muscle too, the 1986 U.S spec Lamborghini Countach 5000s QV. now lets compare the RB26DETT to the Chevy 454. Classic Corvette Muscle VS Japanese Turbo Powerplant, and the classic italian V12.

the 424 makes what? 350hp 500ft/lb torque, even sayes so on the centre console.
it comes with a 4 speed manual transmission, and with a skilled foot, does 0-60mph in about 5.2 seconds. top speed of what? factory claim of 160mph. the car CANNOT hold a corner with confidence out of the factory, so your limited to red light races and cruising around with an iron clutch.

the RB26DETT, in street tune, with the japanese de-tuning set aside, makes close to 500hp, and over 400ft/lbs of torque. it has 4wd thus acceleration matches if not beats the 454, and it reaches the same top speed. yet it is 2 cylinders less than this classic.

and now the ultimate import of its era. the 5000s QV was equipped with a 5.2L V12 that produced 420hp 340ft/lbs torque, however its performance was arousing. at a 0-60 at 5 seconds and a quarter mile at 13 dead on, with a top speed of over 180mph, it owned the 454. and it could handle the track.

just for good measure, ill throw in the '67 Miura, covers 0-60 in 5.5 seconds, 1/4mile in 14 flat, and will easily send you upwards of 170mph. and it, could also handle a turn like any track performance race car of its time.

sure, argue that v12's have 4 more cylinders than a v8, but think about how theyre half the size...

in the 60's Lamborghini was making Twin Cam 4valve per cylinder v12's, while america was stuck with their pushrods.....the U.S in retrospect, has always been behind in technology...and that is why their v8's, while making outstanding straight line power and performance, still suffer in all other aspects, while other cars of their time did the same and still held the road.

 

[TsLeng]

4cyc. cars beatin V8? Yes if its a 10litre 4cyc. vs 2L V8.

Yeah, a 4cyc, 1100cc bike can beat almost all cars in a straight line. And thats not even a 1300cc 4cyc turbor, n2o bike.

 

[Goomba]

Goddamnit people I was just talking about torque, not transmissions, and powerband and all that crap.

*looks at S2000 comment I made*

Well, it's about time I hit the dusty trail... *fire alarm goes off*

 

[Duke]

Gil, as loudly as I applaud the effort, you're totally wasting your time. You're in the presence of a True Believer, and nothing you say is going to make the slightest difference.

 

[///M-Spec]

hondas are torqueless, their engines belong on motorcycles.

So what do gears do?

Muscle cars are outdated.

Pretty much. Doesn't make them any less cool, though.

V-8 and over is unpractical (4 can go just as fast)

With forced or chemical induction, yes. But what happens when you do the same things to a V8?

Why increase displacement if you can just add forced induction.

Forced induction is the same concept as increasing displacement. You make it sound like there are no costs involved with turbo or supercharging. Someone who likes V8s can say "why add extra poundage and mechanical complexity of FI when you can just make cylinders either bigger or add more of them?"

Boost is the only Replacement for Displacement, seeing as how no matter how big your engine gets, if you boost it, itll only go faster....and you can only make motors so big.

There is another replacement for displacement: its called revs. In the end, it is all about cylinder fill. V8s or turbo 4s are just two different solutions to solve the same age old problem.


M

 

[Gil]

what about six cylinder.....your american sixes do nothing, you simply resort to adding 2 more cylinders, while at the same time, nissan, toyota, bmw, L6's are amazing motors. yes ill discuss the Skyline. R32, the original "godzilla" outperformed anything in its time because of its powerplant, the RB26DETT. we will also throw in "classic import muscle too, the 1986 U.S spec Lamborghini Countach 5000s QV. now lets compare the RB26DETT to the Chevy 454. Classic Corvette Muscle VS Japanese Turbo Powerplant, and the classic italian V12.

Yes, the motors you mention are all extraordinary motors. However, Ford's old 200 cid L6 motor made good power, and was fairly economical. It was also very reliable Then there was the Mopar 225 slant-6. Not the power house the 383 is, but virtually unbreakable. As for true power, the Ford 302 cid six is a Staple for Bronco owners. (Yes, Ford did indeed make a 5 liter straight six) It makes an incredible amount of torque and is a great motor for off-roading. I'd discuss the Skyline, it is an awesome machine, that isn't readily available in North America. Yes, I currently live in Kansas. But I can't recall being braced even once by a Skyline, even when I lived in California. At least I've actually seen a Countach and a Muira.

the 424 makes what? 350hp 500ft/lb torque, even sayes so on the centre console.
it comes with a 4 speed manual transmission, and with a skilled foot, does 0-60mph in about 5.2 seconds. top speed of what? factory claim of 160mph. the car CANNOT hold a corner with confidence out of the factory, so your limited to red light races and cruising around with an iron clutch.

I hate to burst your bubble again, but the 454 wasn't the only 'rat' motor that went into the Vette. There was a 396 in 1965 only, and a 435hp/500lb/ft 427 cid motor. Both were blindingly fast. It also cost less than a fourth of what a WRX costs, and less than a tenth of what a Skyline costs. A new Vette is a better all-round automobile than the Vettes of the late '60's and early '70's, but is still follows the same "formula" and it is quite a good handler turning 0.94g on the Skidpad, with a slightly faster speed thru the slalom than your WRX, and at the same gas mileage, with a big honking V-8.

the RB26DETT, in street tune, with the japanese de-tuning set aside, makes close to 500hp, and over 400ft/lbs of torque. it has 4wd thus acceleration matches if not beats the 454, and it reaches the same top speed. yet it is 2 cylinders less than this classic.

True enough. But I notice that you don't include the figures for a more modern 'Vette. Is that because it's got comparable performance, and still costs less, with less hi-tech crap to go wrong with it? Further I can get 'Vette serviced pretty easily here in Leavenworth county Kansas. Can you say the same for a Skyline?
It's great that the Skyline is blindingly fast. It's another car I'd like to have in my garage. But it's pretty much "unobtainium" in North America. I doubt that there are 2,500 of them in the United states, and most of those are in California. Plus, with a 4-5 yr old R34 priced at $40,000 more than a new Vette with no service agreement or guarantees...well is "unobtainium" worth it?

and now the ultimate import of its era. the 5000s QV was equipped with a 5.2L V12 that produced 420hp 340ft/lbs torque, however its performance was arousing. at a 0-60 at 5 seconds and a quarter mile at 13 dead on, with a top speed of over 180mph, it owned the 454. and it could handle the track.

That's all well and good but if you go back to one of my earlier posts you'll note that both the Mustang SVT Cobra and the WRX are faster by a tenth to 60 and only 3 tenths slower thru the quarter mile. It may be faster on the track, but it isn't anywhere near as practical on the street. Where are you gonna run 180mph in North America? On the roads? I think not.

just for good measure, ill throw in the '67 Miura, covers 0-60 in 5.5 seconds, 1/4mile in 14 flat, and will easily send you upwards of 170mph. and it, could also handle a turn like any track performance race car of its time.

sure, argue that v12's have 4 more cylinders than a v8, but think about how theyre half the size...

in the 60's Lamborghini was making Twin Cam 4valve per cylinder v12's, while america was stuck with their pushrods.....the U.S in retrospect, has always been behind in technology...and that is why their v8's, while making outstanding straight line power and performance, still suffer in all other aspects, while other cars of their time did the same and still held the road.

I'm gonna take all these in one swoop.
The Muira's acceleration times are also slower than the Mustang and the WRX. I imagine it's lap times at the track will also reflect that it's design is nearly 40 years old.
The Muira had a 4.7 liter V-12, the new Mustang has a 4.6 liter V-8. You need to see your math teachers and slap the doo-doo out of them for making you believe that a 4.7 liter motor is half the size of a 4.6 liter motor. Even if it has half again as many pistons.
Since you're gonna turn to cars that are very rarely seen on the roads I'm gonna turn to one myself. The GT40 was an OHV 2-valve/cylinder V-8 powered car, that beat Ferrari in the racing scene 3 years running. Granted it used a 7 liter engine. But then I have been arguing that big motors are better than small motors. Lamborghini, has very little racing history to fall back on, because they weren't built to race, they were built to go very fast on the highway. While Ferrari has a very successful racing history, Lamborghini doesn't have much racing history at all.

And you still haven't answered to #4 in my first post. What's up with that?

 

[Gil]

Damn, double post.
Sorry about that.
Just so this wont go as a wasted post note that when I said that all the large auto makers that offered trucks were offering V-8's I meant that even Toyota and Nissan have jumped on the V-8 bandwagon, when it comes to V-8's in trucks.
What say you to that F. Zamataki?

And Goomba yes you were talking about torque. But if you can't reach the RPM where it's available, does it really exist in the real world? No. It's a figure on paper only. VTEC is a great idea but it would be a great reality if cam changover occured at 3500 RPM instead of 6000.

I'm beginning to agree with Duke. I believe that I may indeed be pissing into the wind. It seems that as your points get weaker you shout louder.
Have you considered televangelism as a career?
You won't convert me because I'm right.
I won't convert you because you're commited to your idealism.
It is a Fun debate however.

 

[Goomba]

Damn, double post.
And Goomba yes you were talking about torque. But if you can't reach the RPM where it's available, does it really exist in the real world? No. It's a figure on paper only. VTEC is a great idea but it would be a great reality if cam changover occured at 3500 RPM instead of 6000.

Ohhh I know. The last comment wasn't meant to be taken seriously or anything. I never thought actually getting to that point. But I just don't like Zamatakfjskhfsi, so I had to bring something up.

 

[///M-Spec]

And Goomba yes you were talking about torque. But if you can't reach the RPM where it's available, does it really exist in the real world? No. It's a figure on paper only. VTEC is a great idea but it would be a great reality if cam changover occured at 3500 RPM instead of 6000.

You can lower the V-TEC crossover point with an aftermarket controller. It just tells the solenoid to switch to the hotter profiles at a lower engine speed. But this would defeat the primary purpose of V-TEC, which is to provide good fuel economy at lower speeds while retaining good performance at higher speeds.

I drove my buddy's S2000 again this weekend (we swtiched cars). Gil, you really can use it in the real world if you're not eager to short shift the car.

The rest of your post is 👍, though.


M

 

[Gil]

You can lower the V-TEC crossover point with an aftermarket controller. It just tells the solenoid to switch to the hotter profiles at a lower engine speed. But this would defeat the primary purpose of V-TEC, which is to provide good fuel economy at lower speeds while retaining good performance at higher speeds.

I drove my buddy's S2000 again this weekend (we swtiched cars). Gil, you really can use it in the real world if you're not eager to short shift the car.

The rest of your post is 👍, though.


M

I know that you can chip the car to make VTEC more fun to live with. But you have to agree it's an extra hassle that you have to live with.
As for the S2000, I officially am green with envy. There's one for sale at an independent dealer in Leavenworth. He wants 24,995 for it. But as I'm getting the Ranger soon, I don't believe that my wife will let me have the 25G's for the S2k.
I think I could learn to drive north of 5000 RPM with a redline of 9000. I think that that would be no problem at all.
My Escort is currently with a bad valve on the number 2 cylinder, and I'm not ready to spend a grand or more to fix it, I've been driving it above 3000 to make it run sorta smoothly.

 

[Lt.Doomsday]

i rather have a old car with a V-8.import stuff is all the rage now,which means paying top dollar for stuff like headers and cams.

i remember seeing some header for an honda with BS welds and a thin metal flange going for $300 bucks.you could get some nice 350 V-8 hooker headers with ceramic coating for that much or if your on the cheap side,get some summit headers for $89-90 bucks.