I just test drove a 1997 VTEC Prelude. I can't say I noticed any huge performance gap between it an

Idiot.

 

Idiot.

 

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

 

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

 

Politely **** 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.

 

Politely **** 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.

 

No - careful choosing can net you a car that makes it's full 240Nm from
2100rpm upwards, with a completely flat torque curve.

No - it's only irrelevent from a performance point of view.

From a "nice to drive" point of view, it's much better to make more lower
down torque instead - you don't need to change gear when you want to
overtake, and you don't need to sound like a screaming banshee if you wanna
make quick progress.

 

No - careful choosing can net you a car that makes it's full 240Nm from
2100rpm upwards, with a completely flat torque curve.

No - it's only irrelevent from a performance point of view.

From a "nice to drive" point of view, it's much better to make more lower
down torque instead - you don't need to change gear when you want to
overtake, and you don't need to sound like a screaming banshee if you wanna
make quick progress.

 

Sensible people would rather have an engine that

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.

 

Sensible people would rather have an engine that

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.

 

Also, the fact that they can spin the motor faster allows a

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.

 

Also, the fact that they can spin the motor faster allows a

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.

 

Flattish maybe and upwards to what?... severely rev limited in most cases.
It's also gonna cost a lot more that its TMV in the U.K.

No - it's irrelevAnt for anyone who actually enjoys driving.

With a 2.5Krpm or so power band, you're gonna have to change gear anyway...
or let the auto-trans usually fitted do it for you. Drive like Gra'ma if
you want.

Rgds, George Macdonald

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

 

Flattish maybe and upwards to what?... severely rev limited in most cases.
It's also gonna cost a lot more that its TMV in the U.K.

No - it's irrelevAnt for anyone who actually enjoys driving.

With a 2.5Krpm or so power band, you're gonna have to change gear anyway...
or let the auto-trans usually fitted do it for you. Drive like Gra'ma if
you want.

Rgds, George Macdonald

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

Completely flat - it's electronically limited.

Just below the redline, at about 6000rpm.

Nope. That's not relevent anyway - I spend approximately 0% of my time above
5500rpm

TMV ?

That would be me.
As someone who enjoys driving, I want lots of low-down torque, and I don't
want to have to rev my car hard to make quick progress - and my passengers
don't want to sit in a jerky noise-box for the whole journey !

Yep. That's why you buy a Turbo car with a 4000rpm power band. See above for
details.

There is no automatic version of the Turbo engine in question.
Anyhow, people don't drive Autos here in the UK - they're very uncommon.

Nope. I quite like hooning around in my 200bhp car, thanks

 

Completely flat - it's electronically limited.

Just below the redline, at about 6000rpm.

Nope. That's not relevent anyway - I spend approximately 0% of my time above
5500rpm

TMV ?

That would be me.
As someone who enjoys driving, I want lots of low-down torque, and I don't
want to have to rev my car hard to make quick progress - and my passengers
don't want to sit in a jerky noise-box for the whole journey !

Yep. That's why you buy a Turbo car with a 4000rpm power band. See above for
details.

There is no automatic version of the Turbo engine in question.
Anyhow, people don't drive Autos here in the UK - they're very uncommon.

Nope. I quite like hooning around in my 200bhp car, thanks