Re: I just test drove a 1997 VTEC Prelude. I can't say I noticed any huge performance gap between it and my 95 LUDE Si

Two cars producing the same power, at the same road speed, will have the same torque at the wheels. Torque at the engine is irrelevant if the gearing is properly sorted.

Irrelevant only if you aren't concerned with how well a car drives...

Wrong, moron.

Idiot.

Never mind. I didn't recognize antispam's sarcasm.

Irrelevant in that it is the torque at the wheels which matters. How well the car drives is a matter of the torque spread of the engine, i.e. the ratio of the highest revs at which the torque at the wheels is acceptable to the lowest revs at which... In turbo diesel cars the torque spread is quite narrow (4500:2000), in a lot of turbo petrol cars it's also pretty narrow (6000:2000), whilst some NA petrol cars manage 8000:1500

The only argument against high-revving low-torque engine is that they are high-revving and thus relatively noisy, but that really is a matter of taste and application - they don't make good cruisers, but they are good fun on back-roads.

Politely FUCK OFF AND TAKE YOUR ATTITUDE SOMEWHERE ELSE sir.

You DID misunderstand his post. Calling me a moron because of it, kinda identifies you as a complete lummox.

That's not what he's talking about.

As you say, the PERFORMANCE between the two, is no different.

But the short-gearing high-revving car will go WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE as you drive it quickly, and you'll have to change down a gear evertime you wanna accelerate hard.

Precisely the point he's trying to make !

If I wanna get somewhere quickly, I wanna do it smoothly and quietly.

Lordy originally said that you can't get torque at the wheels unless you've got it at the engine, and then implied that a car with a high-revving engine can't 'drive well'. That's what I was replying to.

Me too, in most cases. But if I want something which is fun to hoon round local B-roads then long-term comfort and noise levels aren't important.

I once drove down to Pisa in a suped-up, stripped out mini - I'd much rather have done it in a luxo-barge, and I've also diven round scotland in a Carlton, but _that_ would have been much more fun in the mini. As I say, it depends on the application.

Hang on. He said that you can't get much torque at the wheels "if you haven't got much torque to put there", which 1) is wrong and 2) sounds to me like he's talking about performance, not how easy/quiet the car is to drive.

Yup.

Yup, and I agree that in some situations, and for some people that isn't appealing, but insofar as I think Lordy WAS talking about performance, I stand by my comment :)

Indeed, the saab 2.3 turbo lump produces 350nm, which by my reckoning is roughly equivalent to what a 4 litre NA engine might be expected to produce. It's no small-block chevy, but it's not exactly limp-wristed.

A low gear ratio just means it zips up the revs quicker to hit the power band, that's not a replacement for torque.

But those NA petrol cars with 8000:1500 have no real torque, and only provide performance during the last 25% of that band.

lol. The argument against high-revving low-torque engines is that they are utter s**te to drive unless you want to race everywhere at above

6,000rpm.

It's only irrelevant if you want a car that drives like shit unless you're flogging it everywhere. That's a workaround for a car's limitation, not an equivalent driving experience.

Cars that drive like shit? That would explain Honda sales over the last (pick number between 1 and 32) year(s).

IN this country, they're lower than Ford. And bar a Cosworth, i can't think of 1 single ford worth owning. People buy Honda's because they're reliable, VTEC engines are all well and good, but if you can have a 2.0 VTEC with

200bhp and 2.0 Turbo with 200, that makes as much torque but all the way from 2100rpm to 6000rpm, obviously the turbo is gonna be much nicer, less rev needing drive. Plus, the turbo offers FAR more tuning potential.

That's about the size of it. I fully agree that VTecs are techincally excellent engines, and if you want big-power from a small NA lump, they're the only choice. But why bother ? You can have MUCH more power from a Turbo engine instead, and it's a much nicer drive. VTec may well be plenty better than your average NA engine - but it's no match for forced induction !

While there are many marques which sound/feel like they're being flogged at higher RPM, a properly engineered engine/drivetrain does not have to conform to that dogma.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

Well except for GM, all the car makers are lower than Ford (in the US). The point is that 32 years ago, no one even knew that Honda made cars. Now they sell about a third as many as Ford does and at much better profit margins. That wouldn't have happened if they drove like shit.

Well, what car do you like?

No doubt, but many also buy them for the way they drive.

You might choose to rev it less, but so what? If I want to go fast I rev it. The turbos have some down side too. I don't know if turbo-lag is much of a problem these days but you have more maintenance and the real prospect of major long term problems with a turbo.

As for your 2.0L example; the fact is that you have to buy the whole car, not just the turbo. There aren't really that many turbo cars available (at least in the US). Even fewer if you aren't willing to pay $40K+. Of those left, it's hard to see that they offer performance uniformly better than roughly comparable NA cars.

I like the WRX. In fact I would put it in the top three choices if I were going to buy a new car right now. But how about the Turbo Beetle? With 20 more hp (and $4K more expensive) it should beat the pants off a Civic Si. But surprise, the performance of the two cars is virtually identical and the Civic gets a whopping 6 more mpg.

Or compare an Audi TT to an S2000. The TT costs about $4K more, has 6% less horsepower and the S2000 just kills it in performance. (The TT does get better fuel economy.) I realize that these are not exactly comparable, but that's kind of the point. You can't buy an engine from one manufacturer and a chassis from another.

What's left? Mitsubishi? Based on experiences of friends I wouldn't touch one. PT Cruiser? Saabrolet? I'd reconsider the Mitsubishi.

But 99% of buyers don't tune (i.e. modify) their engines. About half of the rest don't do it very well.