why we have to wait till 6k rpm?
02-22-2006 | 08:13 AM
#22
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,423
Likes: 1
From: Seattle, WA
I can't believe that people still refer to vtec as vtech. VTEC has NOTHING to do with the word technology. Therefore, 'tech' should be left out of every sentence where VTEC is mentioned unless you're stating that VTEC is a technology in itself.
There supposedly are some new cams coming out that are larger and use a smoother powerband. I'm not sure on the brand or anything, just stuff I've heard so do some searches.
And if you think the S2000 is slow before VTEC, try racing some other 4 and 6 cylinder cars out there and shifting before 6000. I have beaten miatas, Civic Sis, amongst many other cars without even engageing VTEC.
If you want to lower VTEC engagement still, a VAFC will allow you to reduce the engagement in 200rpm increments. The best rpm range with a tuned setup usually is around 5400-5600.
There supposedly are some new cams coming out that are larger and use a smoother powerband. I'm not sure on the brand or anything, just stuff I've heard so do some searches.
And if you think the S2000 is slow before VTEC, try racing some other 4 and 6 cylinder cars out there and shifting before 6000. I have beaten miatas, Civic Sis, amongst many other cars without even engageing VTEC.
If you want to lower VTEC engagement still, a VAFC will allow you to reduce the engagement in 200rpm increments. The best rpm range with a tuned setup usually is around 5400-5600.
02-22-2006 | 08:26 AM
#23
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta, GA
Originally Posted by brent_strong,Feb 21 2006, 02:53 PM
The Integra. The S2000 is not even quick until the VTEC crossover.
bAtsu, it is VTEC. Vtech makes phones. Also, with the VTEC killer cams, you will LOSE low end, since you aren't running a mild cam profile to make power down low.
bAtsu, it is VTEC. Vtech makes phones. Also, with the VTEC killer cams, you will LOSE low end, since you aren't running a mild cam profile to make power down low.
Under 6k the S is in no way slow, it accelerates effortlessly.
02-22-2006 | 09:18 AM
#24
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by dyhppy,Feb 21 2006, 02:16 PM
this sounds like a dumb question, but i honestly want to know the technical answer. the car accelerates so well after 6k. why can't it accelerate like that from the beginning?
02-22-2006 | 09:22 AM
#25
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,749
Likes: 1
From: Santa Monica-SoCal
Originally Posted by 04RioS2k,Feb 22 2006, 10:18 AM
it might be a two seat, great handling car but in the end its still a Honda....
02-22-2006 | 10:57 AM
#26
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
From: Toms river, NJ
also to low of a VTEC crossover point will cause a nasty breakup until all the variable factors are at a cetain point....I had JUN IIIs in a GSR motor, vtec cross over on a gsr is 4400rpms and then the intake manifold secondaries open up at 5700rpms. Before getting tuned it would hit vtec at 4400 and them stumble its way to 5700rpms where it would then clear up. 5700 rpms is the ideal cross over point for most vtec motors besides the GSR
02-22-2006 | 11:17 AM
#28
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,949
Likes: 21
From: 17 ft below sea level.
There is no substitute for cubic inches. 
True.
There is also NO substitute for 9000
revolutions per minute.
IMO the F20C performs like any modern 2.0 litre engine until 6000 rpm.
Maybe even a bit better. Check out 2.0 engine specs in other make/model cars.
And the you have another 3000 rpm for
fun.
The VTEC cam profile just doesn't work at 2500 rpm.
Thats where you need the normal cam profile.
True.
There is also NO substitute for 9000
revolutions per minute. IMO the F20C performs like any modern 2.0 litre engine until 6000 rpm.
Maybe even a bit better. Check out 2.0 engine specs in other make/model cars.
And the you have another 3000 rpm for
fun.The VTEC cam profile just doesn't work at 2500 rpm.
Thats where you need the normal cam profile.
02-22-2006 | 12:56 PM
#29
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
From: Nashville, TN (MCS2K)
Originally Posted by jelliotlevy,Feb 21 2006, 04:31 PM
Having owned that infamous 1993 RX-7 for nine years and 121,000 miles, I can assure you that for straight out acceleration, the RX-7 is more impressive. It is also far more impressive in its middle rpm range, so you can get a lot of exciting power without revving the daylights out of it. The RX-7 also handles very well, but can suffer more dramatic and unexpected rear end breakaway than the S2000 owner might ever imagine.
The S2000 will outhandle the RX-7, but will probably give up nearly a second to an RX-7 in 0 - 60, assuming the Mazda is running properly. And that is a very risky assumption. The RX-7 suffers badly in comparison in terms of both reliability and drivability. It uses twin sequential turbos, one coming to life at low rpms, and the second joining in additively at 4500 rpm. The control circuits and air passage plumbing are an absolute nightmare, and very few mechanics are capable of fixing the frequent screwups that occur. You need the strength of King Kong to depress the clutch, and you will find that modulating clutch and throttle for smooth driving at city traffic speeds is a very difficult task. By comparison, our VTEC system is quite simple and reliable. Not a whole lot can go wrong - except perhaps for that VTEC solenoid going bad, which is simple to fix.
The S2000 will outhandle the RX-7, but will probably give up nearly a second to an RX-7 in 0 - 60, assuming the Mazda is running properly. And that is a very risky assumption. The RX-7 suffers badly in comparison in terms of both reliability and drivability. It uses twin sequential turbos, one coming to life at low rpms, and the second joining in additively at 4500 rpm. The control circuits and air passage plumbing are an absolute nightmare, and very few mechanics are capable of fixing the frequent screwups that occur. You need the strength of King Kong to depress the clutch, and you will find that modulating clutch and throttle for smooth driving at city traffic speeds is a very difficult task. By comparison, our VTEC system is quite simple and reliable. Not a whole lot can go wrong - except perhaps for that VTEC solenoid going bad, which is simple to fix.
and if the rear breaks out more than an S2000 it would be undriveable.
Nice car though. Like it better than an RX-8.
02-22-2006 | 01:19 PM
#30
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
From: Hilton Head Island
Originally Posted by lydas2000,Feb 22 2006, 04:56 PM
since when does a gen III RX-7 do 0-60 in 4.2-4.5 seconds
and if the rear breaks out more than an S2000 it would be undriveable.
Nice car though. Like it better than an RX-8.
and if the rear breaks out more than an S2000 it would be undriveable.
Nice car though. Like it better than an RX-8.
Trust me, I have driven both cars, and the RX-7 will spin out its rear much more easily. Part of the problem is that the full 217 lb-ft of torque from the 255 hp engine is available at around 3000 rpm, and the OEM tires were 222/50 x 16 all around. That car could fail to gain traction in 1/2" of snow on level ground.