In article , snipped-for-privacy@removethis.hotmail.com spouted forth into uk.rec.cars.modifications...
Ah yeah, that could work. And if the Alfa isn't as good as I hoped, like you say, i could always go back to a prelude, or pick something new to play with.
Ahhh, they're not bad.
Very strange interior, though. I like the XJS-esque rear lights.
And I like the very strange interior, rear lights are a bit big compared to the Gen 5 ones with the smaller strips, but the front lights are better than the big honking square slabs.
Best thing is, pre AUG 92 you can legally remove the CAT, and later (+
94) had digitial EL instruments that can be retro fitted with a little work, + all models had headlight washers, and later ones had projector lamps that can be swapped into the basic shells, and projectors with washers would be perfect for HID lights.
As a totally unbiased Prelude owner, I would disagree with that. Mine is the 2.3 non-VTec, which pulls strongly from tickover to over 6500rpm, and never feels gutless. I have driven the 2.2 VTec, and it's a superb engine - it is _slightly_ less gutsy than the 2.3 at low revs, but still pulls well and is very smooth. The reason it can feel weak at low revs is because of the vtec kick at high revs, but it is _never_ 'off cam' - that's the whole point of the VTec system.
The grip and handling of the gen 4 prelude is excellent, especially with the 4ws. If you push hard enough to slide, the handling is essentially neutral, but you can get understeer or oversteer, at least in the wet, using only the throttle.
The ride is firm, as befits a sports coupe, but it's pretty supple, and it doesn't get flustered easily. The interior does have some pretty wacky styling, what with the nutty dashboard, but it's very well screwed together and not particularly plasticky.
I never come back from a drive in my prelude without a big grin on my mug, yet it's utterly reliable.
From the point of tuning, it's relatively straightforward to stick a mk5 prelude engine in - that gives you 200BHP straight off, with no adverse effects on driveability or economy (unless you use the extra poke, of course :), plus there's no cc increase, so no insurance hike...
Because the engines are so strong, they are ideal candidates for turbo/supercharging and/or NOS - there are tons of US companies making all kinds of kits for doing exactly that.
Put simply, if you do buy a Prelude, I very much doubt you will regret it.
Nice mini review there.
For day to day driving, as much economy as possible (no I'm not planning a Clarkson Edinburgh run), with some fun driving for shit and giggles thrown in when the mood takes me, which do you reckon would be the better of the two? I imagine that the 2.3 is a lot mechanically simpler than the VTEC 2.2.
BTW, do you use super/optimax or normal 95ron swampgas/premium? I've had a few confilicting reports, some of the yanks say their 91PON (our 95ron ) is hte minimum you should ever dream of, but should really use 93PON (97/98RON), other brit/euro owners have said that they run fine and sound fine on 95RON no bother, and a couple of JDM owners have commented that their jap imports run real flat in 91/95 as they were intended to run on Jap 100 Octane.
The 2.3 engine (h23a) is slightly simpler than the 2.2 vtec (h22a), but the 2.2 is a physically stronger engine - it has a beefier bottom end because it's designed to rev higher than the 2.3. OTOH the 2.2 might have had a harder life, but if it's in good nick when you get it then it'll keep going for ever. The VTec components themselves are very reliable.
As for economy, there really isn't much difference - you can expect mid- high 30's on the motorway, mid 20's when you are really caning it. I've averaged 32mpg over the 3 years I've had mine, mostly A-road blatting. I did manage a 40mpg average on the one 'economy run' that I've done in the car, doing 60mph up the A1.
95RON is fine in either. The 2.3 doesn't have a knock sensor, but runs perfectly on it. The 2.2 also runs fine on it, but the performance is better with super/optimax etc..Given a choice, I would go for the 2.2, but if you are mainly cruising, with relatively little back-road screaming, the 2.3 may be a better option.
Just thinking of the price differences mainly. I noticed that the VTEC badge in an advert tends to add about a grand to the price unless it is an auto or "Needs TLC" which I'm taking to mean, something is seriously borked (Maybe 4WS, or the VTEC system), or there is a mashed panel somewhere onthe otherside of the the photo. It's going to be mainly motorway to work with a short 30/NSL run upto the motorway at both ends. probably about 38-40 miles a day, sometimes stop start other times 80+ all the way home (on the motorway). Varies so much day to day it is incredible.
Yeah, same engine as in the Rover 623 isn't it ? Not exactly a powerhouse though :)
...and MASSIVELY less gutsy the equivalent forced-induction engine...
...it is.
:)
Agreed. VTec is fine system. When combined with some sort of forced induction to give it the low-end poke it really needs, I imagine the results would be EXCELLENT !
Given a choice between a VTec lump and a stock NA lump, I'd take the VTec every time. But it pales next to an equivalently powered BigCapacity/Turbocharged/Supercharged engine :-/
All the manufacturers should start using VTec systems on their engines. It adds lots to the party, without really taking anything away.
Ah, the joys of the M62... I have no idea what sort of MPG you might expect in that sort of driving.
A quick look on autotrader suggest that the price range for the mk4 2.3 is something like £1400-£2995, and for the 2.2 £1500-£3250. There are a few
2.2's for under a grand, but as you say, they are probably best avoided.
So many blody autos too.
--=20 The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
I would imagine that a Prelude would be a little lighter than a Rover surely though.
Agreed, but for now, that is a plus point. I've gotten "boost" out of my system for now (or need to).
Thats why I'm in two minds whch to go for. In the 2.3, it would still sup more while howling, but without the kick, but the VTEC would actually kick more of a benefit when booting it, instead of just swalling more fuel.
The UK VTEC models actually have more power in a slightly lighter, lot smaller, more modern car, than the Saab. Only thing about the Saab I will miss apart from the midrange grunt, is the huge cavenous boot. You can, with the rear seat down, fit two 28" Widescreen TVs in, in their boxes, and the boot properly closed. A single wardrobe, and a chest of drawers will equally go in too. I imagine that the torque will be slightly down on the Saab, but if I get a good one, and fall in love as most owners seem to, there is always the option of bolting on power. As it is Japanese, there is a big US and Jap tuning scene to go with it, and they can build in big power, from adjustable VTEC controllers (to alter when it switches from economy to power cam profiles), to supercharger and turbo kits, plus Nitrous and the usual conventional tuning methods.
Isn't that a sign of an import? - there were _lots_ of imported slushomatics.
On that note, be careful that the cheapies aren't imported, as it's nigh-on impossible and stupidly expensive to get basic parts for them. The main model to avoid, ISTR, is the non-VTEC 2.2, especially the slushbox version.
Biggest give away is the Si 2.2 VTEC. Never had one in the UK, it was
2.0i, or 2.2 VTEC or 2.3Si.Jap model VTEC had half leather or cloth, UKs had full leather or cloth. Son't want a slushmattic anyway, I've heard horror stories about US ones (especially when used as a sequencial box) when you add any power to the engine later.
Not much - the non-TI 600s only weigh 1250Kg or something.
Pah ! Boost am de best.
:)
Definately go for the VTec - it's got nearly 30bhp more, and it's nearly 2 whole seconds quicker to 60. The 2.3 isn't a "performance" car.
Forget about fuel. You either pay lots for it, or you buy a diesel (or LPG or whatever) - it's that simple. You can't have a reasonably quick, economical car - the two are mututally exclusive :)
Yeah, there's all sorts of Honda-gubbins kicking around the world though...all of which will use more fuel ! :)
Yup, same engine, different gearing, IIRC. 0-60 is just under 8 seconds, and the torque curve is pretty damn flat from tickover to red-line, so it's reasonably quick and very flexible.
Yes, of course. But Carl already said he didn't want a turbo.
To be fair, the difference isn't as big as all that - the Ti produces
235nm. The 2.2 Vtec produces 212nm.
Heh. But it isn't, for a NA engine, which is what carl said he's after!
Indeed, and there is an abundance of kits around for doing exactly that. In fact I have seen a supercharged 1.6Vtec engine producing 400BHp, on stock internals!
Yup, agreed. But he specifically said he doesn't want a big/turbo'd engine. If he's gonna have a NA, then it should be a Vtec!
Yes, definitely. Quite a lot of them are nowadays.
Um. It's less than 1 second quicker to 60. The 2.3 does it in 7.7, and the 2.2Vtec in 6.9 Still, if it were my decision, I would also go for the VTec.
Bah, rubbish. There is quite a big variation in engine efficiencies out there, and a NA engine should be more economical on a cruise than an equivalent turbo. Bear in mind that Carl does a relatively high daily mileage, so the difference between 25mpg average and 30+mpg could be quite significant.
Yes indeed. Although a nitrous kit would only use more when you use it, if you can get one on without the insurance crippling you. Also you can drop a Gen 5 2.2 Vtec engine straight in to get 210 BHP, with exactly the same low-rpm economy.
With 183 and 154 bhp respectively, and relatively little low down to get them moving, that sounds a bit optimistic doesn't it?
Pah, mine in GT2 only makes 300bhp :'( I wanna drive one of those 1.6
170bhp old style civic type R's one day, i imagine it to be cripplingly slow till i get to 5500/6000 rpm, then all hell to break loose :D
According to the user manual, the 2.3 produces 160.2PS (158 BHp), and the
2.2 Vtec produces 187.6Ps (185BHp) As for the 0-60, the 0-30 is limited by wheelspin in both, so is almost identical, above 30mph the the 2.2 is about 15% quicker to 60, which is almost exactly what the ratio of engine powers would suggest :-)The 1/4mile times are:
2.2 Vtec: 15.1 secs 2.3i : 15.9 secsI've just had a look, and the 0-60 time for the _automatic_ 2.3 is 8.9 secs, which is exactly 2 seconds slower to 60 than the 2.2 Vtec, so maybe Nom was looking at the figures for that.
About 155 foot pounds peaking at over 5,000 revs. That a substantial amount less and a seriously substantial amount of revs higher.
But it is for a 190bhp engine. And, altho it may not actually be /that/ weak lower down, the way that it delivers its kick makes it feel that way. It's obviously something you adapt to tho.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.