Will Honda ever come out a timing chain V6? - Page 3 - Drive Accord Honda Forums

Go Back   Drive Accord Honda Forums > Honda Accord Main Forums > Other Honda talk

Drive Honda Accord Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 04-01-2009, 07:31 PM
12153 12153 is offline
banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,170
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
FredSVT:

Calm down, Buddy. I LIKE YOU and I RESPECT YOU, very much, Kind Sir!

The counterweights on the crankshaft, if properly balanced, offset the the reciprocating masses/forces of the piston-rod assemblies, within the SAME plane. (SAME linear-force vectors applied.) This is NOT the case with pushrods, Fred. YES, THEY DO WORK! Just not quite as efficiently. Okay?

You make a VERY fair case about some of the drag motors. The Oldsmobile DRCE (Drag Race Competition Engine) uses a PUSHROD valvetrain. (I LOVE to see Mr. John Force SMOKE IT!) And the venerable "Elephant"...the Chrysler 426 "Hemi" is UNQUESTIONABLY one of the FINEST powerplants ever devised...PUSHROD valvetrain and all!!! "Big Daddy" Don Garlits, Shirley "Cha-Cha" Muldowney, and countless others PROVED that, decades ago, Kind Sir!!!

(Fred, I need to be RICH...so I can go to Jackson-Barrett Auction...to buy a mint-condition 1970 Plymouth "Hemi" 'Cuda. Just to raise the "Shaker" hood and see those dual, inline Carter "AFB" carbs is BETTER than SEX!!! Please include the (A833) four-speed man trans. You got a loose $1.5 MILLION you can loan me?)

My (former) nextdoor neighbor had a an '02/'03(?) Ford F-150 "Lightning." The damn thing is a cross between an Indy car and an NHRA dragster, with a SEXY truck body sitting on top. Had to pull my underwear out of the crack of my a$$, when I put my right foot into the "Loud Pedal." And to see a "Blower" under the hood? I LOVE IT! I LOVE IT! I LOVE IT!!!

Fred, my Dad (stepfather) has a 2005 Dodge Dakota (extended cab) with V-6. It averages about 16 (sixteen) miles per gallon. Ditto for my nextdoor neighbor, who has a 2000 model. My other neighbor owns a 2007 Dakota with V-8. It averages about 18 (eighteen) miles per gallon. All are auto tranny, P/S, P/B, and A/C trucks.

Chrysler, most of their vehicles just can NOT "cut the mustard" when it comes to fuel-efficiency. I would not own one, for FREE. Decimal point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #32  
Old 04-01-2009, 07:51 PM
stevencrosbie's Avatar
stevencrosbie stevencrosbie is offline
Rule Enforcer
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 8,218
Thanks: 1
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Send a message via AIM to stevencrosbie
Fred,

You are correct....Toyota still isn't serious when it comes to the truck lines, but I'm not sure they should be really. As much as I like my truck, I won't lie to you. I think the 2010 F350 with the new 6.7L Diesel is going to be a sweet truck (that is if Ford learns their lessons from the crappy Navistar diesels over the past 25 years).

I didn't buy a Ford b/c the 5.4 and the 4AT Ford was using was a dog. As well, from what I understand, the 5.4 had a small problem of causing the spark plugs to break off in the head and this wasn't fixed until 2007? Eh, either way it didn't yield the mileage or power of the Toyota 5.7.

Your remarks about the Dodge products is correct. The Hemi gets some of the worst mileage in all pickups. Even with that MDS system...yuck.

Now I sit back and watch. I think Ford is going to be okay in the end. They have some excellent products and if I was buying a new truck in two years, it would probably be a Superduty. The new Fusion Hybrid is going to be a hit as well.
__________________
-Steve (Moderator)

2011 Ford F-350 4x4 Lariat Diesel.
2012 VW Golf TDI 4dr Tech Package 6MT


Forum Rules and Regulations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus View Post
Here's a hint - if you don't want to be judged by what you write on an internet forum then don't write on an internet forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #33  
Old 04-02-2009, 05:09 AM
mhadden's Avatar
mhadden mhadden is offline
On hiatus...
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,117
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
OT: I'm glad to see some members here can have a civil argument - there's a lot of facts being thrown around instead of name calling

Back on topic - I still miss the power (and sound!) of my 5.7 Toyota. Although I'm only 25, I think it's one of the best gasoline engines out there in terms of HP/torque for the displacement.
__________________
2011 Pilot EX-L AWD
2010 Corolla LE
2008 Goldwing Navi
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #34  
Old 04-02-2009, 12:30 PM
12153 12153 is offline
banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,170
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
To All:

While I won't speculate about the outcome of either GM or Chrysler, I believe FoMoCo will do just fine. Of the Detroit Three, (IMO) Ford has the BEST product mix, with extremely high quality ratings. Were I ever to revert to a Detroit brand, it would be a FORD!

If Detroit does ONE thing extremely WELL, they build (IMO) the BEST damn TRUCKS in the entire world. I admit bias/prejudice; my Dad drove/owned nothing but Fords, back in the 1960s. WHY he now owns a Chevy Tahoe and a Dodge Dakota is beyond my comprehension. They are constantly in the shop for some repair else a recall campaign.

Fred, I sure miss the old 1967 F-100. It was in our family from 1977 until I sold it in 2005. (Yeah, some 28 years!) Good, old "FE" block family...352 CID...with three "on the tree." I added P/S off of a 1966 big car (Galaxie 500). My Dad and I rebuilt the motor in 1983. Black-on-black, shortbed, with fancy wheel covers off of our old 1969 Country Squire station wagon. Not even a year out of college, I drove it to my first job. I dated the woman who would later become my (now ex) wife. Just that it was kinda dangerous to drive with (as you know) four LOUSY drum brakes that won't stop you in a forty-acre field, jumping terrace rows. Two panic stops from 60 mph, and the (brake) shoes are TOAST! With 4.33 chunk cogs, it got MAYBE 10-12 mpg. Plus, it was getting really tough to find body parts.

I drove that old truck MANY times...when I was looking for another vehicle. I helped many family members and friends MOVE with it. (Try fitting a refridgerator, washer and dryer, and a living room suit in your Accord! Hahaha!) It was a rugged "Work Horse."

(I love the old "FE" block family. The 352/390/428 CID engines, large and terribly heavy as they are, (IMO) they were once some of Ford's BEST. Our old 1969 Country Squire wagon, with 390 2-BBL, it would FLOAT like a cruise ship, at 75-85 mph, all day long, without complaint. Smooth as silk. And whisper quiet! But you wanna go FAST? NO problema, Senor! My "bud" (Steve) has this 1970 Shelby GT 500 with "KR" package. The (factory) twin, cross-ram "Fours" + Ford top-loader tranny make for a lot of sheer excitement!)

Most of the TRUCK owners in my neighborhood drive an F-150...or a Tundra. I admire and respect BOTH.

When you gotta have a TRUCK...there is absolutely NO substitute!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #35  
Old 04-03-2009, 05:02 PM
Fredsvt's Avatar
Fredsvt Fredsvt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Morganville, NJ
Posts: 4,368
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Hi Robert,
Yes, my truck is the same model as the one you drove. '99-'04 Lightnings were essentially the same.
Way underrated in horsepower from the factory. Mine was rate 360hp 450ftlb.

At the time they dynoed at the rear wheels 330 hp and nearly 500 ftlb.

That torque is addictive.

I can totally agree about Mopar and the fuel economy, and not to mention the lack of reliability in their current offerings..

Steven,

I'd be quite nervous about the 6.7 (aka Scorpion) diesel that's coming out. I've seen some very scary pics of the underhood environment.
Talk about squeezing 20 lbs in a 5 lb bag. The radiator alone is more than 30% larger than the 6.4.
Today's 6.4, is another, when it runs well, it's good, but if it screws up, forget it. And for that matter, nearly all service save filters, is cab off.

I'd like to meet up with the engineers who came out with the latest light duty diesels in trucks. The whole idea of diesels was do be simpler and lower maintenance than that of gassers. That's not true anymore.

The 3 valve per cylinder Ford engines, 4.6/5.4 and 6.8 have the plug freezing problem, where the ground shield sticks in the head, and the top part and threads break off and leave that in the head. There's all kinds of procedures and special tools to get them out. The most recent engine are supposedly changed to prevent this?
This is just the opposite of pre '03 2 valve modular engines, which only had 4 plug threads per hole, these engines routinely blew out plugs if installed improperly.

Ford had all their ducks in a row when they went to Washington to watch the other two squirm. The thing is, why is there such a different attitude towards an industry that employs directly or indirectly 3 million people? The ones who got the most are running around nearly scott-free while the automakers are meddled with.

I want to see Ford with Ecoboost in all their cars, which both the V6 and the 4 cylinders are coming next year.

The funny or sad part is GM beat Ford to GDI in the US, with first the 2.0 TGDI in the Solstice and Sky, and then in the Cadillac CTS 3.6. I've heard of no issues with either, yet.
__________________
Sapphire blue '04 V6 6 speed w/ full HFP, comptech ss, momo shadow, TL-S 27.2h/20 bars, intake spacer, retro chrome MH1 HIR2 highs, hella DE fogs, EBC Ultimax, subwoofer/amp, infinity rears, HD Radio, aux adapter, navi conversion.

Vermilion 1999 SVT F150 Lightning, Sylvania/Visteon Xenarc HID headlamps, '01 L turn/marker lamps, PIAA fogs, '01 up Bilstein shocks, all Pioneer speakers, Clarion subwoofer. All Redline fluids.

Silverstone 2003 Honda S2000, bone stock
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #36  
Old 04-03-2009, 09:02 PM
12153 12153 is offline
banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,170
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
FredSVT and All:

I think the F-150 "Lightning" is rated at 380 BHP. You and I could know the truth only after we bolt it to a dynamometer test stand.

In the case of a high-performance vehicle, one of the "games" played is to NOT rate maximum BHP and torque. Rather, just pick a point on the curve for "published" ratings. This minimizes insurance company "high-perf" surcharges on your policy. A profitable sales volume and high insurance rates tend to work cross-purpose. This is a primary reason as to what killed the GM "F-body." (Camaro/Firebird, especially in "Z28" and "Trans AM" versions). Within that particular market segment, people won't buy them...if they can't afford the insurance rates. FoMoCo was extremely WISE and CAREFUL to offer plenty of Mustangs with a slick, "Retro" bodystyle and V-6 powertrains. Desirable AND affordable.

Chevy intends to reintroduce the "F-body." And Chrysler will fast enough sell you a new Dodge "Challenger." WHY is totally beyond human comprehension. I can instantly think of many superior alternative choices, that perform as well or better, for the same or less money. Chevy Division is presently tied up in a lawsuit, with a supplier, over parts and tooling for the new "F-body." And I haven't seen even ONE Dodge "Challenger" on the road. Maybe the collectors are scooping them up, to speculate on them later. Far as I am concerned, both are frivolous products that each company should NOT be investing precious resources in. Kinda ridiculous to try to engage sex...when you have erectile disfunction. Salient point: GM and Chrysler need to straighten out their basic product lineup before they take a "walk on the wild side."

My generation, the Baby Boomers (once some 78 million of us), we grew up, and came of age, at a time when Detroit was turning out some really BAD cars. Detroit burned us, and we never forgot it. Many Boomers will never forgive Detroit of their sins, either. Dollars are votes, and we put them into Toyotas, Hondas, Nissans, etcetera. And we never looked back.

Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen (Z) Next, they have tended to achieve the same brand loyalties, since their PARENTS drove them. (Gee! I remember my Mom's 1985 Maxima! That was a waay cool ride!) The Japanese cut Detroit's throat...with better marketing and better PRODUCTS.

I have been in Honda cars for some twenty (20) years now. Thoroughly satisfied, I have NO incentive for change.

WHY should I give Detroit another chance...when they won't change their foolish ways?

WHY should I have my TAX dollars used to subsidize the products/services of a company who is FAILING in the market place? I honestly do NOT see where I "owe" the GM and Chrysler LOSERS a damn thing. YOU don't, either.

Instead of going to Congress, GM and Chrysler should have notified all of their DRIVERS/OWNERS with a letter stating "Send us a FAT check. Right NOW. We are in DEEP SH**!" Let THEIR owner/driver constituency subsidize them. NOT the rest of us.

If MY company, HONDA, ever gets in a serious bind, I will do my very best to assist them. Doubt that will happen, though...since Honda, a tiny company, with limited resources, cannot afford the luxury of expensive, idiotic mistakes that are a significant part of Detroit's long history. A Corvair, Vega, Pinto, GM "X-car," GM "J-car," ad nauseum mistake would have destroyed most of the Japanese automobile industry, decades ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #37  
Old 04-03-2009, 09:31 PM
stevencrosbie's Avatar
stevencrosbie stevencrosbie is offline
Rule Enforcer
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 8,218
Thanks: 1
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Send a message via AIM to stevencrosbie
Super off topic, but I am super excited to see the new Taurus SHO. It is super expensive, but that 365HP in an AWD form looks awesome.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/02/11/o...rd-taurus-sho/

I hope this car sees lots of success! The powertrain looks promising and the interior looks well put together while still being simple.

Fred,

I haven't seen to much on the 6.7 yet as for pictures, but the numbers look promising. From what I understand, most of Ford's problems with their diesels stem from the Navistar supplier. Weak studs in the heads, EGR valves that leak coolant into the motor, bad injectors, etc of those motors really soured me on the old crop of diesels. I have faith that Ford knows that their future in the HD truck line depends on a successful launch of their diesel as I think it is 60-70% of all Superduty sales.

The latest Ford koolaid is claiming a 3MPG increase in fuel mileage for the new diesel. I see myself in a Ford truck in the next 5-7 years if their diesel proves to be reliable, fuel efficient, and affordable to maintain. You are correct though....the current crop of EPA mandated diesels are difficult to maintain.
__________________
-Steve (Moderator)

2011 Ford F-350 4x4 Lariat Diesel.
2012 VW Golf TDI 4dr Tech Package 6MT


Forum Rules and Regulations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus View Post
Here's a hint - if you don't want to be judged by what you write on an internet forum then don't write on an internet forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #38  
Old 04-03-2009, 10:01 PM
12153 12153 is offline
banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,170
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Stevencrosbie:

One of my "Favs" is the 1993-1994 Taurus "SHO." Friend-of-mine's wife had a 1994 "SHO." NASTY "Jade" green with a saddle interior. But God, did it ever FLY!

Does the new "SHO" have Yamaha cylinder heads? Guess I'll have to look it up at Ford's website.

And 365 BHP? With AWD? You'll need a commercial pilot's license to fly that!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #39  
Old 04-04-2009, 06:07 AM
Fredsvt's Avatar
Fredsvt Fredsvt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Morganville, NJ
Posts: 4,368
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
The '99-'00 Lightnings were rated 360, the '01 and up were 380 and they got weaker con rods out of that deal.
The funny thing is the base engine block is capable of withstanding nearly 1500 hp, with the stock forged crank. The rods were the weak link in these motors.

I don't find the management of GM totally at fault, yes for years they built crap, the cost cutters took it out of the product. But they had and still have to pay legacy costs to the UAW. That's their main problem. At our shop we have a few UAW assembler retirees. One guy was paid 104k per year to balance tires, he did this for 30 years. He now gets 67k per year, full free medical, free use of a GM lawyer anytime he needs it and cars/trucks at the assembly price. And he can still collect social security. He also gets a 5% cost of living raise per year. Ridiculous.

I think none of these companies should have gotten a dime of our money, period.

I've driven the Challenger, it feels just like an old 70s car, big, heavy, slow to respond, but moves well in a straight line. BORING!

IMO the Camaro is ugly, they took the nice styled '68 and made it too square and angular. It's gonna be quick with the LS, but heavy.

The new SHO is an ecoboost engine, Ford's corporate Duratec 3.5 with DI and twin turbos. They have cosworth designed heads and castings.

I'll believe the 6.7 hype when I see them actually work right. The failings of the 6.0 and 6.4 were a combination of both companies. The base engines were weak, with only 4 bolts per cylinder on the heads. In the Int'l applications they are tuned 100-150 hp LESS. So the cylinder pressure isn't there. The Ford cylinder pressure is so high that on the 6.0 all the heads lift in normal operation, pulling heavy loads for long periods will always result in the truck puking coolant. The 6.0 had major issues with casting sand plugging oil coolers and then cooking the EGR cooler, then blowing head gaskets, cracking heads and warping blocks. The 6.4 isn't much better. It has issues with injector failure, making oil, blowing EGR coolers, radiator failures, turbo failures, base engine self destruction amongst others.

I went to Honda after having a bad experience with American products, Saturn specifically, that car, the twin cam coupe, for the time was okay, it at oil at a rate that I found unacceptable. At 3k the rear main blew, at 11k the water pump blew, by the time I traded it on my GSR it used a qt of oil every 900 miles, and that was AFTER it was repaired by saturn under warranty.
I had the GSR for 10 years and only had the rear calipers lock up on it just before I sold it. It even still had it's original battery. I miss that car.

Here's an infuriating thing about late model Chryslers, some others may use this too now, say you have a headlamp or tail light blow, (explode) and the bulb filaments touch, shorting out the circuit. They use what's called a SJB (smart junction box) that sends power and ground to the lamps. If it detects a short, it will disable that lamp. Once you repair the problem, say just a bad bulb, the circuit will remain dead. You'll need a factory scan tool to go into the SJB and reset it, if it survived the short. The SJB is a $600 part. It's a nice idea, it eliminates fuses, of which some cars can have hundreds now, and puts that function into a reset-able electronic part. But, when it requires the owner, who may be able to change a bulb or fuse to return to the dealership or to a very well equipped independent shop, and pay to reset or replace the part, it's just insane. We have a customer with a Dodge diesel pickup, she smashed the headlamp assembly, and the bulb did blow, and shorted. She went to Dodge, after I couldn't get the lamp to operate. Just to reset the SJB cost her 129.95, their normal charge to replace a bulb and reset the component. Stupid.
__________________
Sapphire blue '04 V6 6 speed w/ full HFP, comptech ss, momo shadow, TL-S 27.2h/20 bars, intake spacer, retro chrome MH1 HIR2 highs, hella DE fogs, EBC Ultimax, subwoofer/amp, infinity rears, HD Radio, aux adapter, navi conversion.

Vermilion 1999 SVT F150 Lightning, Sylvania/Visteon Xenarc HID headlamps, '01 L turn/marker lamps, PIAA fogs, '01 up Bilstein shocks, all Pioneer speakers, Clarion subwoofer. All Redline fluids.

Silverstone 2003 Honda S2000, bone stock
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #40  
Old 04-05-2009, 02:25 AM
12153 12153 is offline
banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,170
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
FredSVT and All:

I LOVE what all you say. YOU are one of the guys who needs to be "in charge" of Detroit. Clean house, get a clean sheet of paper, and start FRESH.

Back on topic...as to pushrod-actuated valvetrains versus OHC setups.

Fred, I am going to "bust your chops," just a little bit...but in a nice way, hoping you take NO offense to what I say:

Some specific problems that remain with pushrod engines:

Limited engine speeds...as in RPM - Pushrod engines have more valvetrain moving parts thus more valvetrain inertia and mass. As a result, they suffer more easily from valve "float" and may exhibit a tendency for the pushrods, if improperly designed, to flex or snap at high engine speeds. Therefore, pushrod engine designs cannot revolve ("rev") at engine speeds as high as OHC designs.

Modern pushrod engines are usually limited to about 6,000 RPM to 8,000 RPM in production cars, and 9,000 RPM to 10,500 RPM in racing applications. In contrast, many modern DOHC engines may have rev limits from 6,000 RPM to 9,000 RPM in road legal car engines and up to 19,000 RPM in current Formula One race engines, using pneumatic valve springs. High-revving pushrod engines are normally solid (mechanical) lifter designs, flat and roller. In 1969, Chevrolet offered a Corvette and a Camaro model with a solid lifter cam pushrod V8 (the ZL-1) that could rev to 8,000 RPM. The Volvo B18 and B20 engines can rev to more than 7,000 RPM with their solid lifter camshaft. However, the LS7 in the C6 Corvette Z06 is the first production, hydraulic-roller cam, pushrod engine to have a redline of 7,100 RPM. It achieves this feat vis-a-vis an ECU-controlled powertrain management system.

Limited cylinder head design flexibility - OHC engines benefit substantially from the use of multiple valves as well as much greater freedom of component placement and intake and exhaust port geometry. Most modern pushrod engines have two valves per cylinder, while many OHC engines can have three, four or even five valves per cylinder to achieve greater power. Though multi-valve pushrod engines exist, their use is somewhat limited due to their complexity and is mostly restricted to low and medium speed diesel engines. In pushrod engines, the size and shape of the intake ports as well as the position of the valves are limited by the pushrods.

Fred: PUSHRODS always work against Sir Isaac Newton's famous laws of Physics. Inertia: That force which keeps stationary objects at REST. And which also keeps moving objects in MOTION. KE= 1/2 (M) (V), squared. Kinetic Energy equals one-half the mass, times the velocity, squared.

I always loved to argue with my Mathematics and my Physics professors. I FLUNKED a lot of their exams, too....foolishly thinking I could BREAK...else find my way around...the inviolate principles of pure SCIENCE.

The "Quadratic Equation," it is a wonderful example. X= negative B, plus or minus the square root of 4(a)(c), all divided by 2(a). From the Calculus, it is a derivative of the basic expression, (a)(x) squared, plus (b)(x), plus (c) equals zero.

When YOU can find a BETTER way to determine "non-linear" functions, you let me know. YOU will be a candidate for the Nobel Prize in Mathematics.

Take 16 (sixteen) pushrods, weighing approximately 4-to-6 ounces each, factoring for distance traveled, per each cylinder combustion cycle. Be sure to assume that the camshaft rotates at one-half of the crankshaft RPM.

You should REALIZE that a LOT of kinetic FORCE is WASTED. YOUR Hewlett-Packard Scientific Calculator works just as good as mine, Buddy!

Overall, pushrod motors run about a 60-65 percent efficiency LOSS, against their DOHC brethren, all other things being equal.

I've already given you ONE exception to the rules, as in low-to-medium RPM diesel engines. They "lug" well, and they are cheap to manufacture.

Brush up on your Algebra and your Calculus, Fred. Review your "Statics and Dynamics" texts.

Next post, this old geeky "Inga-Neer" may hit you with a tough "pop quiz."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #41  
Old 04-05-2009, 05:36 PM
88AccordLX-i's Avatar
88AccordLX-i 88AccordLX-i is offline
31.3 MPG!
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lewistown, PA
Posts: 939
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
This thread is nothing short of AMAZING! Good show by all!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #42  
Old 04-05-2009, 06:13 PM
J30A5Refined J30A5Refined is offline
banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 478
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomRock View Post
Is there a cost reason why they won't do it? Just wondering. I also heard that the V6's don't have an alternate cam profile like the 4's (instead they incorporated the VCM).

I'm an admitted Honda newb, and when I first started doing research on VTEC engines I always associated it with an alternate cam profile. But I read something about the V6's not having it at all...
I love my belt-driven V6 especially in slow traffic where the gears really allude to the power on tap even in the low gears the car feels and looks like it has gobs of low end torque when it's all about the Vtec at 4k rpm + !!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #43  
Old 04-06-2009, 12:00 AM
12153 12153 is offline
banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,170
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
To All:

This is perhaps redundant...but....

The VTEC system on my '02 (J30A1) V6 is a PART-time VTEC. BELOW about 3,200-to-3,500, it opens only ONE intake valve fully. The other intake valve is opened just enough to prevent fuel "puddling" in the port. This is Honda's way of "improving" fuel economy.

MY preference? Gimme a DOHC setup, with FULL VTEC engagement say, 3,000 RPM and above...for explosive "roll on" response at 50 mph and above. "Makes nice" for passing maneuvers and "panic situation" avoidance maneuvers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #44  
Old 04-06-2009, 10:39 AM
sjlee's Avatar
sjlee sjlee is offline
6th Gear
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: WI
Posts: 1,789
Thanks: 1
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ******* View Post
To All:

This is perhaps redundant...but....

The VTEC system on my '02 (J30A1) V6 is a PART-time VTEC. BELOW about 3,200-to-3,500, it opens only ONE intake valve fully. The other intake valve is opened just enough to prevent fuel "puddling" in the port. This is Honda's way of "improving" fuel economy.

MY preference? Gimme a DOHC setup, with FULL VTEC engagement say, 3,000 RPM and above...for explosive "roll on" response at 50 mph and above. "Makes nice" for passing maneuvers and "panic situation" avoidance maneuvers.
Maybe some day. The only Honda DOHC V6 (so far) was the one in the NSX.
__________________
2007 Honda Accord EX-L V6 AT 4DR (Alabaster Silver Metallic) - splash guards, wheel locks, OEM foglights, GROM adapter
2005 Honda Pilot EX-L (Desert Rock Metallic) - splash guards, wheel locks, crossbars, side steps, towing package

1995 Yamaha FZR600 - sold
2001 Chevrolet Cavalier LS sedan (silver) - sold
1996 Acura Integra GS-R sedan (Black Currant Pearl) - sold
1995 Suzuki Katana 600 (teal) - totalled; sold
1984 Chevrolet Celebrity (brown) - first car; sold
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #45  
Old 04-06-2009, 02:57 PM
stevencrosbie's Avatar
stevencrosbie stevencrosbie is offline
Rule Enforcer
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 8,218
Thanks: 1
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Send a message via AIM to stevencrosbie
Quote:
Originally Posted by ******* View Post
To All:

MY preference? Gimme a DOHC setup, with FULL VTEC engagement say, 3,000 RPM and above...for explosive "roll on" response at 50 mph and above. "Makes nice" for passing maneuvers and "panic situation" avoidance maneuvers.
Or give it intelligence so it can operate throughout the rpm band (VVTi or iVtec) on both sides of the head

Don't forget how nice it is for fun !
__________________
-Steve (Moderator)

2011 Ford F-350 4x4 Lariat Diesel.
2012 VW Golf TDI 4dr Tech Package 6MT


Forum Rules and Regulations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markus View Post
Here's a hint - if you don't want to be judged by what you write on an internet forum then don't write on an internet forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Drive Accord Honda Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
The answer to the random question may be found under the Off Topic section of the forums and in the "Drive Accord Forums" category.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:20 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.