Does an upside down Acura badge mean anything??

[vlad]

Possibly a V for VTEC?

 

[MrElussive]

Possibly a V for VTEC?

VTEC sucks.

 

[epj3]

VTEC sucks.

nice reply

I dont see why vtec is something to brag about anymore, almost all companies are putting a valve-control system on one of their engines these days.

 

[PhatBimmer]

I didn't know thats what V-TEC was so popular for . In any case this kid I know has a Acura Integra S 92' and he thinks he has 200HP and a V-TEC engine. I could be wrong but I think 92's pull 130 w/ their 4 banger engine, and I don't think it has a V-TEC......I could be wrong..[|)]

 

[brahtw8]

I didn't know thats what V-TEC was so popular for . In any case this kid I know has a Acura Integra S 92' and he thinks he has 200HP and a V-TEC engine. I could be wrong but I think 92's pull 130 w/ their 4 banger engine, and I don't think it has a V-TEC......I could be wrong..[|)]

VTEC was available on the 92 Integra GSR, but that engine made 160 hp. He may have put a different engine in the car, or he is full of sh!t.

Although many car companies offer Variable valve Timing and lift Electronic Control, Honda was the first. It goes hand in hand with their philosophy of building high revving, extremely efficient engines with amazing specific horsepower output.

Yes, there are a lot of stupid people with VTEC stickers and it has become a sign of a badge-engineered Honda, much like a fake Type-R badge, but that doesn't mean VTEC sucks.

Given that the "i" on BMWs derives from the fact that the car is fuel injected, I don't think we are in any position to rip Honda for proudly displaying the VTEC badge on its cars.

 

[Average Jae]

like you need a rhyme or reason for the ricers? i mean they are ricers fer crying out loud!

as for acura for honda badge swap.. all acuras are hondas back in the island anyway, so ricers just maybe paying homage to the original. when it goes the other way around, refer to the first line of this post

my friend had a red on black background honda emblem on his prelude. thought that looked cool, until someone ripped it off!! ah well..

 

[MrElussive]

VTEC was available on the 92 Integra GSR, but that engine made 160 hp. He may have put a different engine in the car, or he is full of sh!t.

Although many car companies offer Variable valve Timing and lift Electronic Control, Honda was the first. It goes hand in hand with their philosophy of building high revving, extremely efficient engines with amazing specific horsepower output.

Yes, there are a lot of stupid people with VTEC stickers and it has become a sign of a badge-engineered Honda, much like a fake Type-R badge, but that doesn't mean VTEC sucks.

Given that the "i" on BMWs derives from the fact that the car is fuel injected, I don't think we are in any position to rip Honda for proudly displaying the VTEC badge on its cars.

Your Acura ownership has made you develop a serious soft spot for Honda. Yes, Honda was the first for VVT technology and they are the best when it comes to engine efficiency (fuel economy and emissions), but Honda needs a serious lesson in torque. It's just ironic that ricers always proudly display their stupid VTEC badges all over their cars when it seems that the whole concept of VTEC is aimed towards increased gas mileage and lower emissions rather than raw power.
In fact, I think many Japanese sports cars suffer from torque issues (Honda S2000, Mazda RX-8, Nissan 350Z, etc.). It's not that I mind winding up my engine to get all the power out of it, but I would like some more "get-up-and-go" without having to downshift one or two gears. This is something that the Germans (Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche) are really great at and the Japanese should definitely learn a thing or two from them.

 

[brahtw8]

Your Acura ownership has made you develop a serious soft spot for Honda. Yes, Honda was the first for VVT technology and they are the best when it comes to engine efficiency (fuel economy and emissions), but Honda needs a serious lesson in torque. It's just ironic that ricers always proudly display their stupid VTEC badges all over their cars when it seems that the whole concept of VTEC is aimed towards increased gas mileage and lower emissions rather than raw power.
In fact, I think many Japanese sports cars suffer from torque issues (Honda S2000, Mazda RX-8, Nissan 350Z, etc.). It's not that I mind winding up my engine to get all the power out of it, but I would like some more "get-up-and-go" without having to downshift one or two gears. This is something that the Germans (Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche) are really great at and the Japanese should definitely learn a thing or two from them.

You really want to engage me on this issue. I didn't bite on "VTEC sucks" but I guess I'll bite here.

Honda, and japanese manufacturers in general understand torque, they just have a different philosophy. There are a number of japanese engines that are not wanting in torque. The 4.5 liter V8 in the original Q45 is a good example. My TL is not a torque pig, but doesn't leave me wanting down low. I wouldn't think that the Nissan VQ engines are lacking in low end torque either.

As I understand it, the point of VTEC is to allow the engine to maintain its power at higher RPM. VTEC doesn't kick in like forced induction, it just continues the power curve into higher RPMs without having to run that kind of an aggressive cam all of the time and ending up with a car that lopes along at idle like a '72 camaro with a loose rear bracket.

I do find it interesting that you chose the german manufacturers as the example of low end torque, when torque has always been the calling card of american auto manufacturers. Sure, the germans build some torquey engines, but often need forced induction to do it.

I don't mind shifting gears. I like to downshift. I would rather have an engine with a 3k RPM power curve, say between 4k to 7k RPM or 5k to 8k RPM, than a torque plateau from 1800-5000 RPM and redline at 6k.

More than speed I enjoy the perception of speed, which is more about acceleration than speed. I like the feeling when a high revving, normally aspirated engine "comes on cam" and you get shoved back into your seat for the trip to redline. My friend's Audi S4 has a very linear power curve, and I find that to be a negative. It was at least a second quicker to sixty than my old 325i, but we both agreed that the 325i felt faster.

 

[Ghost]

Given that the "i" on BMWs derives from the fact that the car is fuel injected, I don't think we are in any position to rip Honda for proudly displaying the VTEC badge on its cars.

BMW puts the “i” on cars to separate them, d - diesel, e - eta and i-fuel injected. I have never seen a BMW with a ‘VANOS’ emblem. [bmwkick]

 

[brahtw8]

BMW puts the “i” on cars to separate them, c-carburetor, d - diesel, e - ed and i-fuel injected. I have never seen a BMW with a ‘VANOS’ emblem. [bmwkick]

I am not aware of the 'c' having been used for carbureted cars. It has generally stood for coupe, AFAIK, as in CS, CSI, CSL, etc., and occasionally convertible (but only like 'a' stands for automatic, as in on the sticker but not the badge). 's' has also designated coupe as in 325is (and also designated sport as in 535is).

As I understand it, the general convention is to use no letter to designate a carburetor, as in the difference between a 316 and a 316i.

e stands for eta.

td has been used for diesels in the past, as in 524td, but now it seems to be d, albeit not for US sale.

You are correct that BMW's don't have VANOS emblems, but the more relevant comparison would be all of the non-M BMWs with Ms on them. That is sad.

 

[MrElussive]

brahtw8, thanks for the response. I love challenging you because you give really great answers and if there's anybody who really knows his shit, it's you.
As for the VQ engine and its torque down low, I am probably just being critical because after having my Jetta 2.slow for a whole year, acceleration has become very important to me. One thing I don't like about the powerband of my car is that the maximum torque is at 4,400rpm and it is kind of a weird experience when I floor it. Let's say that I am driving around and I decide to punch it in 2nd or 3rd gear. I'll watch the tach rising and as soon as I hit mid-4K, the tach just FLIES to redline (6,600rpm)...it is kind of a weird (yet surprisingly fun) experience. I just wish I would get that "push-you-back-in-your-seat" effect that German cars are known for.

 

[brahtw8]

brahtw8, thanks for the response. I love challenging you because you give really great answers and if there's anybody who really knows his shit, it's you.

I guess I can't argue with you there.

Seriously, I don't have all the answers, but I try to at least differentiate between what I know and what I think, and that is why I don't usually get into trouble. If I don't know something, or if I am not sure, I usually will let people know.

As for the VQ engine and its torque down low, I am probably just being critical because after having my Jetta 2.slow for a whole year, acceleration has become very important to me. One thing I don't like about the powerband of my car is that the maximum torque is at 4,400rpm and it is kind of a weird experience when I floor it. Let's say that I am driving around and I decide to punch it in 2nd or 3rd gear. I'll watch the tach rising and as soon as I hit mid-4K, the tach just FLIES to redline (6,600rpm)...it is kind of a weird (yet surprisingly fun) experience. I just wish I would get that "push-you-back-in-your-seat" effect that German cars are known for.

Call the below informed speculation or miscelaneous ramblings.

A torque peak of 4400 is not on the low side, but not all that bad either. I think 3500 would be about as low as I would want, assuming a naturally aspirated and high revving engine.

In any event, I would think that you would be getting the push in the back when your car flies to redline from 4500 to 6600.

Torque may not be the relevant number here. I know there has been some discussion about the difference between torque and horsepower before, and which one is the more relevant number, but it may make sense to revisit that a little bit, because in this case I think horsepower may be the issue.

I consider the power curve to be the point from the torque peak to the horsepower peak, with a little bit of RPM before and after, depending upon how flat each power curve is.

If you think about the gearing perspective, take second gear for example, each RPM increment, say 1000 RPM, should translate into the same chunk of MPH. In other words, if 2000-3000 RPM in 2nd goes from 15 to 20 mph, 3000-4000 RPM should go from 20 to 25 MPH.

The reason that you see the tach climb faster from 4500 RPM to 6500 RPM is because the car is making more power such that it is able to cover the corresponding MPH range more quickly than it could from 2500 to 4500 RPM. In other words, the car will go from 20-25 faster than it will from 15-20, in the example above.

If you were able to construct an engine that was otherwise identical to the VQ engine in your G35, but moved the powerband down 1000 RPM, you would get the same result from 3500-5500 RPM that you now get from 4500 to 6500. I don't think it would change your perception of the push in the back.

Frankly, I think that 'weird' feeling you describe is that push, it just is not as abrupt as you are looking for. Perhaps the feeling you want is like having a low torque peak with a large plateau, like a turbo audi or SC/Turbo MB. I think that kind of push is a little more subtle, as it is immediate but very linear. You hit the torque peak and stay on that plateau until you go above the powerband.

Anyways, getting back to the torque/horsepower issue, I think horsepower is the key, but can be deceiving. 240 hp. is 240 hp., but I would consider the S50/S52 US engine in the E36 M3 to be more powerful than the engine in an S2000, despite the fact that both have the same peak horsepower. You need to know the RPM that horsepower peaks at or the peak torque amount to determine which engine is going to make more torque. In other words, if both engines make the same peak horsepower, the engine that achieves peak horsepower at a lower RPM will necessarily have a higher peak torque number (assuming the hp. peak is above 5750 RPM). This is because horsepower is just a function of torque x RPM/5750 (ICBW about the precise RPM, but its close if not correct). In other words, does an engine make high horsepower because it has high torque, or high horsepower because it has high revs.

Again, 240 hp is 240 hp., regardless of RPM, but the ability to maintain a lot of horsepower over a wider RPM range is generally considered a good thing.

I may have gotten off track there, but so be it.

 

[MrElussive]

Again, 240 hp is 240 hp., regardless of RPM, but the ability to maintain a lot of horsepower over a wider RPM range is generally considered a good thing.

Very good point in the end, and I think that's what my car's "flaw" is. I completely agree that 240hp is 240hp and the example of the S2000 and the E36 M3 is really great. People say that the S2000 doesn't have any power, but that's just because you really have to wind up the engine (and the car has a power-band of 4K-9K rpm) to make it fast. Plus the 0-60 time of 5.9 seconds shows that it is genuinely a 240hp motor and nothing less, just very differently engineered...closest thing to race car, if you ask me. I test-drove one once (I think 2001 model...it was the last model year to have the plastic rear window) and the salesman kept urging me to drive the shit out of it, so I didn't hesitate to whip it and I had a great time with it.
Anyways, on to my car's "flaw" as I mentioned above. The VQ engine puts out 280hp (@ 6,200rpm) and I certainly see it but I think the motor doesn't really put out anything near that until higher rpm's. And it annoys me because the power increase as I get to the higher rpm's doesn't feel very linear. For example, in these cold winter days of NJ, my Pilot Sport's just do not warm up enough, so traction is poor. So if I punch it in 1st gear starting from a stop, the car will be accelerating pretty fast, and then as soon the tach reaches 4,400 mark, the rear tires spin and lose traction viciously and I have to let off the accelerator and upshift and it just ruins everything. Now gear 1 is your average close-ratio 1st "pickup" gear that ends at 35mph so it is always pretty raw, so it's hard to evaluate the power-band in 1st (especially in cold weather, since I just lose traction right at the maximum torque). But when I punch it in 2nd or 3rd, I watch the tach increase upwards pretty quickly and then as soon as I get to 4,400rpm I get this explosive surge of acceleration that is very abrupt and right from there the engine rushes like a bat out of hell to redline. Is your 04 TL the same way? I'm not so sure if I prefer such an obtrusive powerband setup because remember when I had my accident? I said I was going like 30-35mph but the truth is, I was well into 3rd gear and I punched it when I was going into the turn and I was right at that 4,000-rpm range and all the max torque was being produced so the rear wheels just spun loose and traction control was off, so there was nothing to save my ass, and I just went into a huge spin and ended up on somebody's lawn.
Anyways...my question is...is my car an acception, in that maybe it doesn't produce that much torque/horsepower until 4,000rpm but once I hit the 4,400rpm it is like maximum torque being delivered right away, so that's why it is such a sharp increase in acceleration? Perhaps I should get my car dyno-ed to better understand the powerband?? And perhaps I would better enjoy the power-band of a twin-turbo Audi S4? My friend used to have one and that thing used to whip me back in my seat like no other car I've ever driven or been in, and I absolutely loved it!

Thanks,
MrElussive

 

[brahtw8]

A couple of things.

I think that you are looking for a car with a lot of low-end torque and a flat power curve. You want your power to be fairly linear, and at the low end.

The "on cam" feeling I am talking about sounds like what you don't like in your G35, i.e. having a sweet spot where the power increases.

I would think G35 forums or stillen would have some G35 dyno plots or other graphs of the VQ output.

I am surprised that you perceive such a difference in your car at 4400 RPM. Your description seems closer to the feeling of when a single turbo kicks in, kind of like an on-off switch. No power at 4000 RPM and tons of power at 4400 RPM. Not that extreme, but you get the idea.

Lets say the VQ makes 270 ft/lbs at 4400 RPM. I will speculate that it makes 240 ft lbs at 4000 RPM and 200 ft lbs at 3500 RPM. You shouldn't feel that great a difference based on torque.

The horsepower curve may be the better indication here. I think you may see more a jump to explain your perceptions. Plus, the graphs will show how the two relate, and meet at 5750 RPM or so. After that, torque plummets and hp. rises until it reaches its peak. An engine that makes peak hp. at less than 5750 will always have less hp. than torque.

I think looking at the graphs will help. Gearing doesn't change throughout an individual gear, and traction should not be an issue at higher speeds.

BTW, I think everybody who was paying attention knew that you were not giving us the whole story on the accident. Not everything has to be said. I certainly don't post every problem or embarassing moment I have experienced. You exceeded the slip angle of your tires, and the rear end came around. It happens to the best of us. Driving schools will help with understanding when not to apply the throttle and learning to sense when you are getting close to the limits, but even with that knowledge anything can happen.

 

[MrElussive]

Yeah, I mean the difference from 4,000 to 4,400rpm isn't night and day, but there is a very noticeable difference in acceleration at 4,400 rpm than at 3,500 rpm, for example. And when I punch it in the cold weather in 1st gear, the rear wheels spin out exactly at mid-4K rpm every time! It really does seem like a turbocharger kicking in at exactly 4,400rpm. Or maybe I'm just exaggerating the situation and I'm just not used to these Japanese motors that are all about the high revs. It's definitely cool to watch the tach fly from 4,400rpm to redline, but I really have to pay careful attention when that happens.
In any case, I am definitely going to try to find a graph of the power band...perhaps somebody on G35Driver or another G35 forum has that graph...if not, I'll just get the car dyno-ed for myself.
Thanks a lot for the help, brahtw8, I really appreciate it and this is definitely a fun discussion.
And don't take my "VTEC sucks" post personally, I just wanted to get some laughs from the others on this board. Honda/Acura makes some REALLY nice cars, especially for the money...a person would be stupid not to appreciate what Honda/Acura offers for the money, particularly the new TSX and TL.

 

[brahtw8]

And don't take my "VTEC sucks" post personally, I just wanted to get some laughs from the others on this board. Honda/Acura makes some REALLY nice cars, especially for the money...a person would be stupid not to appreciate what Honda/Acura offers for the money, particularly the new TSX and TL.

No worries. As I said, I didn't bite on that one. Don't forget my first thread as a member of this board was "Casualties of the Ricer Wars".

I know everybody likes to make fun of the ricer crowd, and the Honda Civic is THE car for that culture, particularly if you drop a GS-R Integra 1.8 liter VTEC motor in it (B18?), an engine that many called the small-block Chevy V8 of the 1990s.

I make fun of them too. I just want to make sure that people understand that generalizations about the ricer crowd don't always hold true for Hondas or those who appreciate Hondas. I also try to make sure the Honda guys don't get out of line with their BMW-bashing on www.acura-tl.com

As I have said, one of my choices for the NSX vanity plates, if I ever get them, was NO RICER. If it didn't have an anti-asian connotation, I would be all over that one.

 

[MrElussive]

Yeah, I think we are on the same track, brahtw8. On G35Driver.com, those owners really hate on BMW's every time they are brought up. But I can't blame them, if we all didn't drive G35 Coupes, we would be running around in 330Ci's and they just love their rides and wanna justify their purchase. I can't blame them, I just wish some of them were less biased...I consider myself an auto enthusiast with a particular preference for BMW (because no matter what happens, BMW will always be all about the driver), and it shows as I am in an Infiniti and not a BMW, yet I chill here.
Regarding your vanity plates, I once saw an Acura NSX around my neighborhood with vanity plate "EN ES EX", and I thought it was pretty clever.

 

[brahtw8]

I considered that one as well.

The current top of my list is LUVNSX.

 

[gbf1lm]

ive seen alot of people put Acura to Honda badges. i think its because outside of US there is no Acura, and its really a Honda. for example, anywhere outside US i think its the Honda NSX. im not sure thugh.

 

[gbf1lm]

I considered that one as well.

The current top of my list is LUVNSX.

i personally dont liek it when the name of the car is in the plates, i mean i cna read the badge. yet so often i see, MYBMW, or SL500, and this looked really cheesy but on the only street, f50 i seen, 'BAD F50'