legacycentral bbs

The only Honda that I'm somewhat impressed with is the Accord V6. At least it's a driveable car.

Contrary to common belief, high RPM doesn't mean high power. Your 9000 RPM redline is good for what? Taking longer to reach the powerband.

And a 9k redline with super high hp and torque peaks, what good is that on a daily drive?

There was a reason Honda bumped the S2k up to 2.2L this year. You couldn't drive the damned thing without being above 6k the whole time.

It's a fun daily driver. I dont know why you guys think revs are evil... the engine is designed for it. It's how Honda can get away with making decent power out of a tiny little fuel efficent engine. The powerband isn't actually that bad. It begins to pull pretty hard around 4,500 RPM and it keeps getting faster the more it revs. That's what it's designed for. I don't think it's impractical. What is the difference? It's like having the power of a larger displacement engine, except it lives in higher rpm ranges. Then if you don't want to go fast, you can chill on the low-vtec cam lobes and scoot around town getting excellent fuel economy at lower RPM's...

It dosen't take all that long to get out of the sucky low-rpm bog on this engine. Once I'm finished with first gear, that's all I ever see of it. When I shift into second, the speedometer has just started to move off of zero. (Think 3.2 first gear with 4.40 final drive). For drag racing, I just let the wheels spin a bit to get it up into VTEC and off the line through 1st gear, then when I'm shifted into second, once they get done spinning, it's right in the engine's sweet spot. Obviously this would not be possible on really grippy drag slicks, but it works well on street tires.

Cliff's Notes: It's not that bad driving a high-rpm engine and it's a lot of fun.

P.S. - It's depressing from going from driving my car to driving my parent's Mazda 626 with a 2.2L DOHC 4-cylinder. That engine makes no power, so I rev it, expecting it to pick up, but it just falls off sharply and the car slows down as the RPM's increase past a certain point. That's depressing! I've had people drive my car tell me it's like driving a turbo car, except the whole ENGINE has to spool

i dont care about rpms or any crap like that but from the way you're explaining it it sounds like first gear is useless. I'd rather have a car where the engine had power through every gear. Noone hates revs, it's just hondas need revs to be efficient, torquey engines don't. Me personally I'd rather have more low rpm power than high rpm power simply because I like putting my foot down and getting whiplash.

THAWA wrote:i dont care about rpms or any crap like that but from the way you're explaining it it sounds like first gear is useless. I'd rather have a car where the engine had power through every gear. Noone hates revs, it's just hondas need revs to be efficient, torquey engines don't. Me personally I'd rather have more low rpm power than high rpm power simply because I like putting my foot down and getting whiplash.

I feel the same way.

I don't like waiting until 4500 RPM's to have all of my power. To me, that's like driving behind some really slow person for a few seconds before you get to pass them. You wait in anticipation, then when you finally get to pass, you're pissed because it took so long.

Hondas are weak. Plain and simple. High revs are for bikes and race cars. The reason they advertise HP instead of torque is because the buying public has been duped into equating it with power when it means nearly nothing compared to torque. Any engine that quotes peak HP at high rpm is going to be weak. HP is a mathematical calculation of torque times HP. The higher the peak HP, the lower the torque as the high rpm number balances the torque figure. I regularly smoked Honda SIs in my 1984 Subaru because it made a lot of power for its size at low rpms. I'd shut down at 40 or 50 and let them finally scream by knowing they lost. If I had kept my foot in it they would've beaten me, but so what? My car shouldn't have been able to touch them with only 73 HP, right? But 90 lbs./ft @ 2400 in a 2100 lb car. Not to mention any speed above that in a town is dangerous and very likely to get you pulled over.

When I need to pass someone (sometimes as a saafety issue) I need to pass them then, not take a second to downshift or wait for the engine to breathe - it can be the difference between the old lady who misses the stop sign missing you or not (I speak from experience).

Old post-emissions muscle cars also made little HP (the same or less than those Hondas), but people who owned them back then would swear today that they were faster than today's cars even after you show them the performance numbers to dispute it. Torque is power and they made lots of torque - that's what they remember - being thrown back in the seat when they just tapped the gas. I've been in so-called fast Hondas and seen the spedo move quickly all the while entirely bored and unimpressed. They feel like sewing machines. Oh wait, there already was a car called Singer.

And Volkswagens are barely better than Hondas at low end and they don't kick in at high rpm. Plus they break down all time so Honda still gets points over VW at least. And the Koreans, of course.

Steve

buncha haters up in HEAH

zelifcam wrote:buncha haters up in HEAH

you do know we are a Subaru BBS

MK

Your allowed to be a hater when you have driven the cars in question. The difference is that I like all types of vehicles, Im not biased to Subaru. I like domestic V8s along with low displacement imports, and Ive owned both.

Even the fast Honda's (relative to other honda) Ive been a passenger or driver in left me unimpressed. The speed was increasing but I had no smile on my face, it was a cold lifeless speed.

The purpose for a vehicle is enjoyment, not bragging rights. I see most Hondas intended just for showing off.
I dont care if your 2000 pound car can hit 12's when the engine is at 8000 rpm. If I wanted a small high revving machine Id purcahse a motorcycle and have far more fun, get more performance and spend less money.

A vehicle should be fun to drive in ALL circumstances. The clutch shouldnt be so grabby that you screech the wheels constantly. I shouldnt need an ultra loud exhaust matched with high rpm that pisses everyone else off.
Continious wheel spin unless you have sticky tires is a pain.

ciper wrote:it was a cold lifeless speed.

Hahahahaaa what the hell is wrong with you?

Here's a haiku:

A cold, lifeless speed
Hit 12's, I am unimpressed
I did not smile

A guy I talked to from the Stanley Museum in Maine who drove a 1908 Stanley Steamer Vanderbilt Cup car the couple hundred miles to the Castle Hill concours talked about how the car destroyed new Camaros and hotrod Mustangs yet made only 60HP. How? How about over 700lbs/ft of torque from 0 rpm. It could spin the wheels inside the tires so they had to make a special rim to hold the tire to it. He said the first time he launched the thing his neck was sore for a few days (he wasn't expecting it). When I asked how hard it must have been to drive it that far on the highwaay, he said it was the most fun thing he'd ever driven and would easily cruise at 70. It wasn't dangerous at all as it could pass whenever it pleased (I'm sure nobody tailgated either with the steam trailing out the back). At some point I could maybe post some pictures of the black coffin-nosed monster.

A later steam car, the Doble, could reach a full head of steam in less than a minute from cold (a former weak point of steam cars) and was rated at 100 HP. Yet it made over 1000 lbs/ft of torque. The huge ancient luxury car could do over 100 and hit 50 in 10 sec in the early twenties. There was also a 100,000 mile warranty on it and it got over 60mpg of water with a condenser, but that's another story, my point here is torque is king.

Steve

I dont like you, anymore

I feel my words are wasted, you have no useful comeback.

ciper wrote:I dont like you, anymore

I feel my words are wasted, you have no useful comeback.

hahaha


MK

Just stumbled across this thread. Funny... I was just telling someone how bad VWs suck. I used to be a VW enthusiast and still like the old air-cooled ones, but ever since they started pumping water through them, they started to suck (kinda like Porsche). Besides helping out many people over the years after their VWs buckled, I realized just what crap they were when attempting to fix a power window on a friend's Passat a few years ago. I was shocked to find that the cause of the problem was a farking broken STRING that was part of the power window lift mechanism. Yes, a string. I pulled the window up, tied the string off on something in the door and it never moved again. Junk.

...too cheap to own a real car, he had a volkswagon rabbit and that put an end to Harry's cheap habbit...

Dave

See, I don't understand all the hate.

My friend Matt had a 1982 VW Jetta I.

5-speed, manual everything (no power steering). 400k miles. Never had a problem, and it was never in the shop. Not once. Finally totaled when he fell asleep at the wheel and crashed head on into a trash truck going 50mph. Wasn't wearing a seatbelt (if he had airbags, he would have broken his neck).

His parents have a 2001 1.8T Passat. Again, with no problems since they bought it new.

My other friend Andrew. They have 2 old school Beetles. He had a 1989 Jetta II. 250k. Jumped, e-brake slid, drifted, crashed, the thing never died. Finally got rid of it when he got his new Turbo Beetle. 40k on the Beetle and hasn't had a problem at all (except a busted ass fender because of a collision with a deer). No problems in the Beetle.

No power down low? Maybe in the N/A 2.0L I4's, but not in the Turbo's. They make peak torque by like 2400 or something like that. 180 lb-ft at a lower RPM than our Turbo Legacys. Same hp, Same torque, Same weight, less drivetrain loss.

I guess I don't hate them because everyone I know who had one loved it and never had problems. My mom was on the brink of buying a W8 Passat, but changed her mind at the last minute. If you want to see a fast sedan, the W8 Passat is one of them. The car pulled harder in 4th than my Turbo Legacy pulls in 2nd.

There was a mid 80's Golf that we thoroughly beat the piss out of and it never protested. Perhaps VWs just run best under heavy abuse.

Dave

Sports Car International put a Passat W8 against the much cheaper Infiniti G35 and all they did was shit all over the VW. Plus try fixing that engine...

I was at my mechanics a few months ago and a new VW stopped by for a wiper fix. It was pouring out and the wipers had come off the linkage. I've used my wipers to clear off heavy snow and ruin blades scraping ice and never had an issue. If the snow's too heavy it just stops until its cleared off. My old Subarus were the same. A problem like that so early on I'd get rid of the thing immediately and buy from another company. WIth the prices of new cars things like that are unacceptable. Of course, some people have low expectations.

I've driven an A4 with the 1.8T and found it to be disgustingly weak. My N/A wagon would beat the thing and have more fun doing it. I felt almost no lag, but almost no power either. Maybe if the car didn't weight 1000lbs too much.

The only good VWs I've seen are the ones in the JY - no longer harrassing their owners or slowing me now (driver's wanted Their owners are worse than Volvo drivers).

Truthfully I've only known one person out of dozens with a VW that has no trouble with it, but she drives like an old lady. Its a 1995 Jetta with about 100k.

Even this guy I knew who was an old VW fanatic said he'd never buy a new one after the problems his wife had with the new Beetle.

Steve

By "much cheaper" I assume you mean 5k cheaper. You can't get a manual tranny G35 in AWD.

I drove the W8 and didn't feel any inadequacies. Drove fine, and hauled more than you'd expect a passat to. But it was only a test drive, so...

I'd rather have a G35, but I don't discredit the Passat at all. Espically since everyone I know that has one, loves it.

Maybe I don't know enough people who have VW's. Every VW/Audi/Porsche person I know, loves it and hasn't had many problems. The only problem they have is parts costing loads of money.

G35 you say?
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/8100982.htm

ciper - That guy's an idiot, but he made me laugh, so he's OK.

BAC - there must be happy VW customers out there with all the fanatics about. Its just in my experiences I've seen nothing but problems with them.

Steve

Yeah, all the new VW owners I have known lately, except one, have been quite unhappy with their cars and from what I can tell, they have good reason to be. I have no reason to be biased against VW's since I have always had a fondness for German cars, but damn, those things are crap any more. After owning/working on/dealing with, etc. Porsches, VW's and BMWs, among others (besides my 911SC and Benz, MAYBE, and I guess Volvos hold up well), I think Subaru easily builds the best quality cars. They were slipping in the late 90's though and I'm hoping that the latest models are back up to par. My Subes will eventually have to be replaced... some day

Dave

new volkswagens are like macs.

they're cute, and have great features, but you cant work on them, and have to be replaced every few years

Even the color selections are the same. (at least for the Beetles)

Shapes, too. Looks better as a computer...

Steve

my mom owns a beetle and an imac.

did it come with an ipod?