Talk:VTEC

Untitled
About my edit of the VTEC in motorcycles text (changed first sentence to note the existence of an earlier Honda VTEC model): Following the guidelines, I wanted to include a reference to the Honda (Japan) Web site mentioning this earlier model, but I had thought the reference section would apply to just the VTEC in mojjjjjjjjjles section. It is now rather incongruously sat in the middle of the VTEC page. Can it be moved? Thanks. SUPER VTEC BAWWWAAHHH

Copied?
Is some of the VTEC-E text copied from this page in the links: Temple of VTEC? It looks very much like it to me but I don't seem to be finding any explanation as to why, and it clearly has a copyright notice at the bottom. --66.7.109.4 (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right, some of this page is a a copyright violation. If this is not rectified within a day, I will delete the problematic areas. --Leivick (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Modern VTEC
The end of the article states that 'The original VTEC technology did not do all that much to improve engine power or efficiency at low speeds'. I'd like to see some more material here about what it did for high speeds, and what modern VTEC can do for a car. Also, could someone clear up (or rewrite so as to specify) whether 'original VTEC' is a reference to the first introduction of VTEC in '89, as is a reference to all the first forms of VTEC, including the more modern i-VTEC, VTEC-E, and Three-Stage VTEC. If not, do these alternatives offer more than the 'original VTEC' as mentioned. -- Guest, 24 Apr, 2005

VTEC is not as good as the potent vvti made by toyota.

No diesel?
Maybe it's worth noting whether or not Honda made diesel VTEC engines. I think it make sense in the introduction part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.238.237.61 (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

High Speeds = High RPM?
In that last paragraph (quoted in part in the "Modern VTEC" comment above) where the article says "low speeds/high speeds" I assume that means high engine RPMs? The use of the word "speed" is confusing because that could also mean the speed of the car...

It means RPMs 71.243.197.236

Superscript text== The myth of the efficient Honda VTEC debunked == I posted this on the S2000 discussion page. Go and try the site yourself: Its a gross misnomer to consider this car efficient purely in terms of hp/L. Considering the size of the engine, this car EATS gas in day to day use. Here are some numbers from the USEPA site [www.fueleconomy.gov]:

For comparison I have used the Mazda Miata, a car in the same class and the oft maligned muscle car, the Ford Mustang:

Car: S2000;     Miata;     Mustang GT

Fuel Type: Premium;   Premium;    Regular; MPG (city): 20;   24;    17 MPG (hwy): 26;   30;    25 MPG (combined): 22;   27;    20

Regular Gasoline: $2.91 per gallon Premium Gasoline: $3.12 per gallon

(Using combined numbers) Cost to Drive 25 Miles: $3.55;    $2.89;    $3.64 Fuel to Drive 25 Miles: 1.14 gal;    0.93 gal;    1.25 gal

Hilarious. So the S2000 which is HALF the engine capacity of the Mustang uses about the same amount of gas as a 'inffecient' V8? That's 14.3 vs 14.5 cents a mile? Way to go Honda. Using that much gas you only can get 240 hp (237 hp)? Wow. Give me a Miata. CJ DUB 18:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, a honda S2000 would blow a miata away and is this a stock S2000 i would assume. v-tec is like a built in super charger. Skunk2 has a video of a honda fit (much smaller engine than the S2K) and it blew a BMW M5 away and your telling me you want a miata. Thats hillarious. Apparently not much of a tuner or a speed junkie.


 * This is all very interesting information, but what bearing does it have on the article itself? There's no claim in the article that a VTEC engine is more efficient than a V8, only that VTEC was developed to increase efficiency in Honda's engines, which is a true statement.  Are you challenging a particular claim in the article that I'm not seeing? ChadScott 22:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Remember, CJ DUB, that efficiency is measured in mpg, not in gpl (gallons per liter of displacement).


 * Wrong. There are lots of ways to determine efficiency. The numbers clearly indicate that the V8 consumes same/less fuel than does the 4 cylinder, since the Honda weighs quite a bit less; thus more efficient combustion engine. In terms of mpg efficiency, yes the Honda is slightly superior. I am simply showing that not only Honda can make hitech engines. CJ DUB 05:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are forgetting a keypoint here, which are transmission gear ratios. The gear ratios in the S2000 are made to deliver quick acceleration, and given the S2000's lack of low end torque it needs relatively short gear ratios.  If Honda had designed the S2000 to be a green car, then it would have larger gear ratios and hence better fuel economy, however, low rpm acceleration would be terrible.  Also, EPA mpg numbers are not the rule of thumb.  So in order to make your comparison you should use real life results.  The Miata, while it may be in the same category of the S2000 (not price, but body type), weights over 200 lbs less, and has much less power, which makes it obvious why it would use less fuel.  Most V-8s have an overdrive gear for the purpose of higher EPA mpg numbers, not that the V-8s are not hi-tech, but that is the main reason why they can have such numbers.  However in real life, things are different.  Just for example, Car And Driver tested the S2000 and a Mustang Mach 1 and 2 other cars.  Their MPG during that test which was a 750 mile trip showed 17 mpg for the Mustang and 21 mpg for the S2000.  Considering the S2000's gearing that number is quite good.  Same goes to the Mustang in my opinion, considering the size and weight.  But you have to see beyond the engine itself and stop using the EPA numbers as a definitive source.  Maybe even you should read some article regarding the EPA's testing procedure.  This gearing pays off in the track, where the S2000 does what Honda wanted it to do.  Despite have worse acceleration than the Mustang (¼ mile: 14.9 vs 14.0 sec respectevely, due in large part to the low rpm torque), the S2000 had a quicker lap time than the Mustang (1:11.51 vs 1:12.02), and still achieved better mpg overal.  The source is Car and Driver, December 2002 page 52. --Cirilobeto 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying that VTEC is superior. Honda isn't, this article isn't, and I am not. Your defensive attitude is what has continued this discussion. The article (as well as myself) simply states that vtec is a good technology--not the best technology--not incredibly innovative and amazing technology. There is no need to attack honda's VTEC--it is not a bad system--an no one claims it is the best. As for the high fuel consumption of the s2000, I'm sure you are aware that Honda loves to get high-hp-per-liter-of-displacement figures (because of engine size restrictions in Japan). They've always done that. (Take, for example, the 210hp RSX Type-S [now actually something like 200 or 205hp with the new testing methods]), which is only a 2.0L. There is no need for you to show "that not only Honda can make hitech engines" becuase no one attacked Ford as being low-tech, inferior, or bad quality and no one claimed that only Honda can make hitech engines--they make good ones, but so can Ford. WE KNOW! so stop this discussion about the mustang--this page is about the technology of VTEC, not competing technologies.


 * CJ DUB, talking about efficiency and VTEC - D15Z1 straight gas (non-hybrid) VTEC-E engine is 48 city 55 mpg ... now I want you to compare me this engine with any other straight gas engine. With your calculations for 25 miles we need 0.52gal city and 0.45gal hwy, now using $3.12 gas we have $1.62 city and $1.40 hwy for 25 miles.


 * Who cares? We are taling about the alleged 'efficiency' of high output engines, not grocery getters. We already know how efficient they are. CJ DUB 16:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's something to consider for the efficiency of VTEC. The Acura RL weighs 512 lbs more than a Mustang GT and makes the same amount of HP yet still manages to get better fuel mileage than the GT. Interesting when you consider that the weight of the car can have the largest impact on the fuel mileage of a vehicle. IJB TA 05:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Or consider the Acura TL and the Mustang V6, the TL makes 48 more HP and is 235 lbs heavier yet still manages to get better fuel mileage. How did you hope to "debunk" the reputation that Honda vehicles have as being fuel efficient just with some EPA estimates for one Honda vehicle? IJB TA 05:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Performance comparison
Honda S2000 - HP: 240, 0-60 mph time: 5.4 sec., 0-100 mph time: 13.8 sec., 1/4 time: 13.9 @ 100.2 mph, Top speed: 156 mph, Skidpad, g: 0.91, Slalom: 69.7 mph.

Mazda MX-5 Miata - HP: 170, 0-60 mph, time: 7.0 sec., 0-100 mph time: 21.5 sec., 1/4 time: 15.4 @ 88.7 mph, Top speed: 112 mph, Skidpad, g: 0.86, Slalom: 67.7 mph.

Takes fuel to make power/speed. Honda S2000 owners regularly see 24 mpg city.


 * You forgot one: Ford Mustang - HP: 300, 0-60 mph time: 5.0 sec., 0-100 mph time: 13.8 sec., 1/4 time: 13.5 @ 102.0 mph, Top speed: 150 mph, Skidpad, g: 0.86, Slalom: 65.0 mph. (Numbers from Road and Track).


 * Not bad for a 3500 lb ride. Those handling numbers are comparable to a new BMW 3-series in case you wondered.CJ DUB 13:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Read again. The Mustang engine makes ~300 hp and has roughly the same fuel consumption as the S2000, which by the way is of course 237 hp. Hmmmmm. Also, where's the reference for your 24 MPG city? I guess the EPA is full of it huh? Seems to me that the S2000 is far less efficient than the V8 engined car given its small size CJ DUB 13:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Road & Track magazine is my reference for the S2000 numbers. The EPA provides ESTIMATES.


 * I'm sure they do, but a actual US regulatory body reference holds better weight in an argument than an uncited reference directly from you. CJ DUB 17:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

CJ DUB, those are not motor-trend's stats on the new ('05) mustang gt. 0-60 is actually 5.1, not 5.0; and the `quarter mile time is 13.6 (not 13.5) at 99.9mph (not 102.0). also... the skidpad was .84, not .86. to be fair, though, you misquoted some of the numbers in the other direction (see the link). here is the link: click here funny how tenths of seconds just disappear in an argument, huh? I think you may have fabricated some of these stats--how is it possible to reach 102mph in less time than it takes to reach 100? I ask you that. Perhaps MotorTrend doens't know what they're doing/listing.
 * Actually, depending upon the power band of the engine and the gearing of the transmission it's very possible to have varying speeds with similar 1/4 mi. times, otherwise posting the speed would kind of be pointless wouldn't it?


 * Actually, I have fixed that stats below. I originally just threw them in quick. But as an interesting point, the magazine computations often result in mathematical errors the same as the one you identified; stat that are counterintuitive. I am not shitting you. There was an acknoledgment from the Ed. in R&T awhile ago. In this case though I must have got them reversedCJ DUB 06:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

So the Mustang engine is about twice the size of the VTEC and generates around 25% more horsepower. Obviously, case closed, the Mustang is far superior.... How on earth does anyone make such an inefficient engine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.211 (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-VTEC information in "VTEC Experience"
The topic now has almost nothing to do with driving a VTEC equipped car (in any iteration). What sort of edit is that? Whoever did the last edit put a very biased perspective in place while ignoring significant facts in trying to prove a point (i.e. - that VTEC is "hyped").

Ignorance of factors like the torque curve of a VTEC engine, gearing, weight and the varying applications of VTEC doesn't do anyone any good. Additionally, comparing a specific Honda car to non-specified other cars is more than useless. I suggest reverting the section to a previous edit, or it should be edited again to focus on VTEC only.


 * While I agree that VTEC is hyped beyond all comprehension, the Corvette comparison is simply dumb. Why compare what is basically a race engine to a economy car engine? That section should be removed, BUT there should be mention of the hype surrounding VTEC. While the specific output can be pretty high, the fuel use is attrocious. See my comments above regarding other I4 engines and V8s in term of fuel efficiency. CJ DUB 13:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no hype. It's never been marketed as anything more than what it is.


 * Uh wrong. TThere are several examples. The most recent adds on television and radio extoll the performance virtes of the VTEC engine. They are calling the Acura CSX (ostensibly a Civic clone) an "Urban Rocket" with "Hi-Tech F1 Paddle shifting". Yes. Offical Honda ads, not dealer ads. Now isn't that hype? At any rate, this section of the article doesn't even refer to media/marketing hype; more hype from the general public, people who are pleased as punch that they bought a Honda. This is where the majority of the hype comes from, users. CJ DUB 17:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

WOW, that's some major hype. Why are you wasting people's time with such trivial things? No where does that ad say something like, "With VTEC you will have better performance." or "With VTEC you will have better fuel economy.". Where's the VTEC hype? Or a better question yet, why don't you quit bothering people with your nonsense?


 * Lookie here, VTEC hype is real. I just gave a small example of the company hyping the product in advertizement, however as I alluded to, there is the much bigger issue of hype amonst Honda drivers. This, as far as I know, was already acknowleged in the article. I just think it should be more refined examples. Please don't determine for me what is nonsense and what isn't. Except for the Motor Trend reference you are presenting mostly hearsay. CJ DUB 17:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

WHO CARES? Every company does the same thing. Look at Dodge with it's HEMI, or Ford with it's three valves, or GM with it's Vortech or Ecotec. Why don't you please spare everyone your prejudice and quit posting here?


 * Well the first two actually do what they are supposed to. The hemi is no slouch if you actually read what a new hemi can do. There is not an engine designed like a hemi. They breath a ton better than Honda engines. Second, Ford has promoted the 3-valve for emissions improvements, and nothing else. That's a fact. Heck the new 3-valves can make 300+hp on 87 octane and just under 30 mpg. The GM ones are way played out. The engines are thrashy and they rely on having "tec" in the name. But really, other than maybe with the Hemi, where the hype is justified performance-wise, no owner goes around bragging about his Ecotec or Ford modular engine. Honda owners do go around talking about their "VTEC powered Urban rocket", as if it's somehow special. That IS hype. CJ DUB 19:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Which Ford, exactly, gets over 300 hp and gets 30mpg? I would like to know. Also, if I remember correctly, efficiency is measured in miles per gallon not in gallons per liter of displacement or anything like that (as CJ DUB seems to believe). It makes no difference if a gallon of fuel is used in 2 liters or 10--its how far that gallon can move the car.


 * Right you are, and I'm saying it takes 1.14 gal moves the Honda 25 miles and 1.25 gal moves the Mustang 25 miles. I'm not trying to fiddle with the units or anything. I'm saying the Honda sucks gas like a much bigger engine despite its supposed efficiency. This makes the Ford engine more fuel efficent, even if it doesn't matter, cause the car is quite a bit heavier. By the way I said "just under 30 mpg", i.e. 27 hwy in a Ford Mustang GT 5M.

No, you're wrong. More fuel efficient means better miles per gallon. Nothing else. 1.14 is better than 1.25. Don't try to say that the ford is more efficient--it is not. It is a fact that the s2000 is a more efficient car than the mustang gt, so don't try to argue that point as you did. More importantly, it is 25 mpg, not 27, as you exaggerate, and certainly not "just under 30." How far are you going to round?! In your own words: "a actual US regulatory body reference holds better weight in an argument than an uncited reference directly from you." So let's stick to what the EPA says, not what you dream of.


 * As I have said several times already, the Ford engine not car IS more efficient in terms of fuel consumption. The S2000 as a whole vehicle has a ever so slight advantage in fuel consumption (remember it's a 2800 lb car). As for 27 mpg, I can actually provide you with plenty of references for that particular car. Most new mustangs come with an onboard fuel computer which provides a real time consumption value as well as average (over 500 km). 27 mpg is common and 30 mpg (hwy) is not unheard of. Have a look here: http://forums.bradbarnett.net/ <--This is the net's premier technical source for 05+ Mustangs. They had an initiative awhile ago to post mileage numbers. CJ DUB 22:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but as I said, the only fair comparrison is EPA's. I have an F23a1 engine in my accord, (rated at 26/32 mpg), but i have NEVER seen it dip below 34 on any tank. In fact, its usually around 37-ish. Still it means nothing--the only comparrison that is fair is the EPA's, so it doesn't matter how many mustang owners report their milleages. Also, it is impossible to know how much of the mustang's extra weight is the under the hood and how much is throughout the rest of the body, so i still maintain that you cannot consider engines out of cars in milleage estimates--it is a whole package--drivetrain, body, everything!


 * I'm not comparing engines out of cars in mileage estimates, I am talking about true efficiency here. This is a very important consideration, when we are discussing VTEC as a premier engine technology. Honda MoCo claims to be a superior builder of engines. Is it not a "engine company that also builds cars" ? How is it that Ford can built a much bigger and more powerful engine with nearly the same fuel use? Somebody please explain that. That hasn't happened yet. With regards to actual average mileage, I agree fully. EPA applies the same to all. I thought my ref was a bit stronger than your anecdotal one, but in the EPA data the variables are fixed. Anyway, maybe Honda can some how work out a way to get some Tq out of their engines. See turbocharging. CJ DUB 05:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong on almost every count. Firstly, putting it in bold-face is not going to make it important, so stop that, everyone here can read just fine. Secondly, honda does not claim to be a superior builder of engines--they are just one builder of engines. And no, it is not an engine company that also builds cars--if anything, it is a motorcycle company that now builds engines and cars. Thirdly, bigger does not mean better--let's not forget that it gets worse milleage. Fourth, the 2.2L vtec s2000 engine was trying to get maximum power out of minimum displacement--that was the goal. Yes, it requires more fuel to do that. Here's your "explanation"....a v8 won't fit in the s2000, neither will a v6. To make the car handle as well as it does; and to make it light and sporty as Honda wanted (like true sports cars, not muscle cars, like the mustang) the only option was an I4. So, Honda got all they could out of it, even if it meant using more fuel. Finally, don't even try to downplay my "anecdotal" example, when the entirety of yours was "i can provide references". You know damn well that I could link you to several honda forums that report better-than-EPA milleages. It means nothing! EPA is the standard, that's the end of it. Your reference was by no means "a bit stronger"...do you own a mustang gt? From how you've written so far, I'd say you don't! I DO own a vtec. So don't even try that shit here. And one more thing: Honda engines are some of the most turbo-able engines. In fact, Japanese engines are much more often turbocharged than american ones, which would likely fall apart. True, honda doesn't sell turbochargers with their cars, but vtec engines are among the most upgradable. I'd like to see someone safely turbocharge a Ford v8 without spending a fortune and without needing major repairs in the next 100,000 miles.


 * This ^ is the exact reason I posted my comments here. No doubt numerous Honda fanboi's, like yourself will visit this site to learn about the almighty VTEC. They should see a counterpoint for once. I am simply providing another point of view. Man you spouted so fan import fanboi nonsense at the end there I nearly died laughing. "Turbo-able"? That must be why they are all N/A. But Honda must have predicted the aftermarket perfectly then. That is pretty flawed logic, based on tuner mags. Your "likely would fall apart" is also very speculative. In fact there are thousands of Turbocharged V8s out there, aftermarket just like Honda Motors. As for production cars, the idea that US cars are not turbocharged because they would fall appart is utter nonsense. Again, logic? examples? In fact turbocharging was tried long ago by Detroit, but for cost reasons (and lets not forget even Porsche turbos were crappy then), they abandoned it and eventually went with supercharging for gas cars, which is cheaper and never went back. Lets also not forget that both supercharging and turbocharging ARE THE SAME. All they do is compress the air; so US engines DO stand up to charging, the last 10 years of car manufacture has proven this for me (oh wait I forgot that US engines automatically only last 50K miles). But seriously, you really think a Honda is gonna live long running 22#? It'll go kablammo evenutally like any other engine. Hahaha. Have fun.
 * As for your other comments about efficiency, I already see you have no idea what you're talking about. PS. I highlighted the word above because its a technical term. And PPS I do own a Mustang GT, thanks. CJ DUB 15:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Forced induction puts more stress on the engine. An engine that is already prone to breaking (one made by a company that is consistently rated as being unreliable) is more likely to break when turbocharged or supercharged. See this page: click here Notice how reliable japanese cars are and how unreliable american (and many german cars as well) cars are. Notice especially the unreliable v8 models of Chrysler/Dodge, Ford, and GMC. You can't ignore the truth: as a whole, american cars are less reliable than japanese cars. I expand this (not baselessly) to mean that turbocharged american cars are more likely to break than turbocharged japanese cars. I never said turbocharged honda engines are infallible or that they won't go "kablammo" as you put it. I say that they are better cars to turbocharge (or supercharge as the case may be) than american cars.
 * BAAHAHAHAHAH. You really are a moron aren't you? Flipping all over the place. First off the Consumer Reports is total BS. They estimate whether a car will stand up by asking the consumer a bunch of questions, what they "think" about the car; i,e, "Do you find the quality is good?". Then they look at old numbers from the brand. They are known in the industry for this, its called predicted quality testing. You cannot directly relate some data as flawed as that to engine quality. AHHAHAHA. For a start, try the JD Power list for initial quality and long term quality. Then come back and talk smack. They have real data and statistics. They have consistently ranked Lexus # for best in quality. Jaguar is #3/4; Lincoln is in the top 10 usually, too. Having Ford engines????? Oh wow, how did they do that???? Haha, lets look at your list, in fact I see a couple of supercharged american cars on the list of reliable cars!!!. I also see quite a few japanese V8s on the low quality column They say the worst pickup is the Titan. You might wanna read that list over, or find a more legit list. These guys have no idea what they are doing. Hilarious. CJ DUB 19:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You know what's hillarious, is how you include only the points that you want to include--not the whole truth. Let me give you a few examples: yes, you're right, lincoln is 3rd, but guess what is almost dead last?! (LAND ROVER!:395) It is as much a part of the ford conglomerate as Lincoln is. Here's another: Jaguar:268problems per 100 cars. That's been part of Ford for several years now. Want me to keep going? Dodge (i know, not ford), but it got 273 problems per 100 cars. Let me continue: Volvo: 266 problems. Ford: 231. Chevrolet: 232. Hmmmm, let me think CJ DUB, if Ford's engines are so great in Lincoln's, then why so much worse in Ford cars? And what the fuck are you talking about with Jaguar?! It is 268 problems per 100 cars, earning it 23rd (TWENTY THIRD PLACE) not "#3/4" as you put it!!!!!(I had to match your ridiculous punctuation). You're insane if you think that jag is or has ever been reliable (let's not forget, that before it was american, it was british, so reliability isn't exactly in its blood). Honda/Acura are 201/203. Far better than Ford. OH? But you just want to include the "ford engines" in lincolns and ignore the ford engines in all the other companies? Go right ahead, you're only fooling yourself. I strongly suggest you visit the website (linked below). You might learn something about American cars. You need to check your numbers: mine came directly from J.D. Power and Associates 2005 Vehicle Dependability Study. Here's a link, so you don't have to google it: click here. You are correct (to some degree) about CR's ratings. However, you seem to think that it is ok for you to cite a mustang owner's forum for their experience with cars and yet slam an independent test agency for their research. How is it only acceptable for YOU to give "low quality" sources (as you so clearly think of CR), and not for anyone else to? You have a lot to learn.


 * I just thought the msuatng owners site would help. They are big critics of their cars. As for Jaguar, you are looking at 2005 VDS which is for 2002 cars. Jaguar has come along way since then. Look at the 2005 or 2006 IQS and you will find them near the top. CJ DUB 23:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell would anyone look at IQS?! That is ridiculous. Reliability in my mind (and I think probably in the minds of most people) means MORE THAN 90 DAYS! I am definitely looking at the right page. VDS is dependability. No one cares about IQS! A car should last more than 90 days. And no, they haven't come a long way since then. You are comparing dependability to initial quality! You are dead wrong on this! and it is clear that you have no idea what the test mean, CJ DUB!.

Whatver dude. I was comparing IQ Consumer Reports vs. IQ JD Power, actually if you see the thread. New cars. What else is there to go on for new models? CJ DUB 23:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the models are new. A manufacturer's reliability is not going to be completely reversed/overhauled in a short 4 years!


 * Wrong. Things change. Lets wait until next year to see what happend in 2003 (2006 survey). Btw. Please tell me how to find information on cars which came in Fall 2005. I am buying now. Both cars I am looking at are new models, the Lexus IS250 and the BMW 330i, please tell me which one will last me forever. CJ DUB 00:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Aaaaanyway. The point of this whole sidebar/discourse was in fact the inability for the surveys of any type to determine the quality of an engine. CJ DUB 00:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to wait a year: ford sucked this year (2005, which you say is from 2002 data) and it sucked last year (2004), and it sucked the year before. Lexus has stayed at the top, honda has been close behind. things aren't changing as rapidly as you hope they are: Ford/other american motor companies are still unreliable. Check out 2004, CJ DUB, or maybe 2003, 2002, and 2001. You'll find the same information. Why should anyone suspect that it will dramatically change when the new ratings (2006) for VDS come out?! It is illogical---I think its just wishful thinking on your part--there is really no evidence to support your claim unless you count your very detailed explanation, which was: they've "come a long way." very good support, genius.


 * They have come along way. They used to rank near the back in IQS, now they rank further up. Look at Hyundai. People have been calling them shit for years, even when they were better. They too have made huge strides. They were near the top one year (don't remember the IQS or VDS). Look at Mercury: simply rebadged Fords. They are not Lincolns. They be in FRONT of Honda. Maybe this has to do with there being a bit fewer models so they can QA easier. By the way, Lexus, how many models did they have in 2002? Like 4 or 5. Same with Porsche (2 or 3). Ford has a heck of alot more models, so I think their score for 2002 (2005) is quite notable, condirng the dievsity of models, some of which no doubt see very hard work (which Honda do not have), ie.e full-size trucks. Just wait and see. These ratings change drastically from year to year, 2006 may look a lot different from 2005. CJ DUB 02:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A petition
Anyone who agrees that this CJ DUB person is not saying anything worth having on this page, and that comments made by CJ DUB should be deleted from this page please sign here. Anyone who thinks these arguments are valid should also sign.
 * There's no reason to delete anyone's comments, but I think we've gotten off focus here. The talk page for an article is not to debate minutiae regarding how much better one technology is over the other, it's about discussing the article and how to make it better. ChadScott 19:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

IJB TA - For removal

Hey dude, I haven't changed a darn thing on the actual article. So why don't you stop being a baby, and use the discussion page for meaningful discourse rather than trying to have someone ejected simply beascue you don't agree with what they are saying. "I don't agree with you so you're gone" Haha. Nice. CJ DUB 17:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Meaningful discourse? Is that what your using this page for? I thought it was just plain old Honda bashing for no reason. We'll see who else thinks this is "meaningful discourse".

I don't know if I am writing this in the correct section of the discussion page, but I don't think it is a big deal....You should not compare honda's vtec engines to engines found in Dodge, GM, or Ford cars (like the hemi, etc...) because many of Honda's VTEC engines earn substantially lower emissions ratings, including LEV and ULEV (ultra low emissions vehicle). No Mustang's v8 can come close to VTEC engines in that respect. Also, another thought about comparing the s2000 to the ford mustang: getting more power (through more cylinders, and admittedly, less gas per liter of displacement) means nothing when the car weighs 23% more (the mustang, i mean). the mustang is a heafty 3500 pounds and the s2000 only 2850. Also, it makes no sense to compare cars' driving costs based on different types of gas used; the same gas price should be used for all. why? the designation between premium or regular that car manufacturers put on their new models has much more to do with marketing and the image/persona of the car than it does the mechanical requirements of the car. Any car would run better and get more power out of premium gas; however, there are few (all older cars, such as BMW's that are losing compression) cars that REQUIRE premium fuel. another aspect that could have contributed to this difference between the s2000 and the mustang is that the mustang is american. premium/regular is nothing more than a talking point, designed to influence buyers (convince them a car is sporty or pragmatic respectively). that is all.


 * Dude, you said it yourself. The S2000 is lighter and smaller than the mustang, but gets the same mileage nearly. You think they test the engine alone? Also, you have no idea of premium vs. regular. The F22C or whatever needs >10:1 compression to make the advertized numbers. This requires a fuel that does not detonate as easily, ie. premium 91+. The mustang will not run on 91, since the engine is carefully tuned to 87. The octane rating has NOTHING to do with power. Some people have said that mileage is irrelevant with regard to sports cars, but I disagree. For one, if you aren't noticing how much of a hit 91 octane is these days, then you have too much money. Second, promoting certain cars on the basis of their "high tuning and effciency" as I have stated at the top, (and as is common for honda) is a great misnomer and hype. In conclusion, the VTEC is not any more high tech than the majority of systems available today. CJ DUB 03:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying that the cars should be compared on a level ground. Either use fuel around 89 octane and, you're right: *potentially* (read on) have some knocking in the s2000 or just use premium fuel for all tests. HOWEVER, you should note this... Honda's modern vtec engines (such as that in the '06 s2000) have knocking sensors which detect knocking and inform the ECU, which, in turn, alters the spark timings to stop it (and save the engine from potential damage). In modern computer-driven cars, there are almost always these countermeasures in place, so there would be very little chance of serious engine damage if you ran the s2000's 11.1:1-ratio engine on something slightly lower than 91. Also, I thought it was funny how you had no response to the lower emissions point I made earlier. A lot of Honda's VTEC engines are now exempt from emissions testing because of their CARB ratings. I don't know about other states, but in Colorado, where I live, that is true.

Finally, CJ DUB, you scoff at honda's "high tuning and efficiency" in their advertising for their VTEC engines, but in the very same paragraph tout that the mustang is "carefully tuned." In addition, this wikipedia article's introduction (read it) says nothing of vast performance increases, only of increasing "combustion efficiency" which seems to indicate the clean-burning nature of VTEC engines "throughout the RPM range" rather than incredible power output. It seems you are on a vendetta against VTEC owners and their satisfaction.


 * Honda promotes high tuning and efficiency, Ford does not; but it is a fact that the fuel management systems on new Ford engines are just as sophisticated as VTEC-powa. They have knock sensors, variable timing, even variable intake geometry, everything. Mustang is LEV for emissions, by the way. It gets a 6/10 for city emissions and 4/10 for highway. But, beh, whatever, I now believe the last section of the article is probably sufficient to encompass VTEC hype. And its wasn't even me who wrote it. "VTEC owners"? Funny. Enjoy your Hondas. CJ DUB 18:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

yes, it is true that honda promotes vtec more than american companies promote their own vvt systems. you're absolutely right about that. but vtec promotions are never comparrative: its never "vtec: better than VVT-i" or "vtec: destroy a hemi" you can't blame Honda for marketing. Dodge/Chrysler mention "HEMI" on television far more than honda mentions "VTEC."


 * I mostly blame the Honda owners and Civic Nation for the hype and comparos (>100hp/L). But, listen closely and you'll hear the VTEC mentioned in every ad. CJ DUB 22:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're wrong. I rarely hear VTEC in commercials, but yes, the label has a lot of gravity w/buyers and owners. In fact, most recent honda adds do not even mention the engine or drivetrain of their cars, like the one that came out only a year or so ago that showed different people's faces matching the shape/grill of a particular honda. Or take, perhaps, the ad in which people are driving up a mountain, and there are dialogue bubbles with pictures in them--no words at all. If you want to talk about hype in tv commericials, it is quite a different thing from talking about what your friends say, or anonymous owners say, or an internet forum says. There has never been a honda ad that says "yeah!, she's got a VTEC", but it is all to often that I hear "that's a hemi baby!" or something to that extent. If american car manufacturers need 5.7 liters to get the power output of a Japanese sub-3-liter, so be it.


 * Ok, I'll bite, which exactly, sub 3.0L japanese engine gets 345 horsepower? HAHAHAH. Some twin turbo one-off no doubt. Umm Skyline? CJ DUB 06:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally, see the section called "performance comparrison" becuase you misquoted motortrend's mustang gt performance stats. Look up.


 * The numbers were supposed to be from Road and Track actually. I seem to have gotten a few numbers buggered. The numbers vary quite a bit from major to major. One of the majors reported mustangs running 5.0s flat on a higher mileage engine. CJ DUB 06:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ford Mustang - HP: 300, 0-60 mph time: 5.3 sec., 0-100 mph time: 13.5 sec., 1/4 time: 13.9 @ 101.4 mph, Top speed: 143 mph, Skidpad (200ft), g: 0.84, Slalom: 64.9 mph. (R&T).

Ford Mustang - HP: 300, 0-60 mph time: 5.1 sec., 0-100 mph time: 13.0 sec., 1/4 time: 13.8 @ 103.0 mph, Top speed: 147 mph, Skidpad (300ft), g: 0.89, Slalom: N/A. (C&D).

One other stat you might be interested in: lbs/hp Mustang 11.7 - 11.9 lbs/hp S2000 11.8 lbs/hp (assuming weight 2800 lbs)

Wow. I must say that is a surprise considering the S2000 is regarded as a good power to weight sports car. Looks good on the stang. Now compare to a Civic Si ;-) CJ DUB 06:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Good guess, try (among many many others), the nismo 400r. 2.8L 400hp I6 (w/347ft-lbs of torque). Let me do some math for you (although this is getting off the topic of VTEC), the hemi is 204% the displacement, but the nismo gets 16% more power. Hmmmmmmmm. How did that happen? : ) You asked.  Needless to say, the 400r is far more expensive--I'm sure that would be your next argument point.


 * Well I was gonna say, the 5.7L Hemi can be bought by me this afternoon, truck or car. Ummm. Where might I find one of these Nismo rides? As I supected a twin-turbo, one offs or less than 300 made. Boring. And it "happened" by boosting and 95 octane; BFD . CJ DUB 15:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I found a car just like you did, with high performance parts: 4.7L V8 806 bhp (678 ft.lbs). Well lookie here; more than double the hp of the Nismo but is only 1.67x times bigger. Oh and one other thing: its a Ford motor being boosted Koenigsegg CCR. The only thing in the world that is faster is the Bugatti Geyron with 8.0L and 4 turbos. CJ DUB 16:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean "Veyron", or is that just a juvenile joke? Also, the car you listed is $595,000, not even close to the $100,000 you'd have to drop for the Nismo. If you want to compare supercars, go right ahead, but the Nismo is not one of them. Also, six thirds the horsepower for five thirds the displacement is nothing impressive. I find the Nismo/hemi comparrison (different in price, but not nearly as different in price as between the Nismo and the koenigsegg) far more effective: 16 %more power in half the displacement is a greater statistic than twice the power in a bit under twice the displacemen. think about it. Lets do some math: 116%hp divided by (2.8L/5.7L) equals 2.36. Your comparrison would be: 200%hp divided by (4.7L/2.8L) gives 1.19. My number is bigger. That ratio, by the way is horsepower comparrison over displacement comparrison. If you think for a while, I think you'll see why 2.36 is better than 1.19, and therefore, why MY comparrison is better than that with the best car you could find. And this doesn't even include price!, which i already mentioned is better suited in nismo versus hemi than in koenigsegg versus nismo. That's all. If you're not smart enough to get the math, here's the summary: More power in less displacement trumps more power in more displacement. haha.

By the way, here's another: 2005 Nissan NISMO Skyline GT-R Z-tune, a 2.77L w/500hp. And surprise surprise: its not 600,000 dollars. Only 170,000. Both of these last two are more of "production" cars than the Koenigsegg. (once we're done here, we should delete all this, b/c its not really about vtec engines, and this is the discussion page for the vtec article). but i'm willing to continue "discussing" (arguing) with you about this if you want.

Also, don't try to cite the automobile manufacturer reliability index, because it is from the UK, where relatively few fords are sold compared to America. (In that, however, Ford earned a very respectable second place, i'm sure you'd like to say).


 * So you'd rather compare a regular family sedan with a custom/tuner built/race parts loaded motor, rather than a tuner-built super car, which has the same purpose-built mentality? You are frigging drunk. There is a good reason the Nismo isn't a supercar, its not even close to being mentioned in the same sentence as a supercar. CJ DUB 19:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And "Also, six thirds the horsepower for five thirds the displacement is nothing impressive." Hahah. Yes it is. You are talking about a US style V8 motor here. I understand your argument now. So it means that the heavily modified Nissan engine is so much better, than a family sedan, but the koenigsegg is note quite as good at being better? HAHAH. I'm not comparing both to the Hemi, I am saying the Koenigsegg Ford motor is superior to that Jizmo motor. That is true. Z-tune (what did they build 25?), might be a different matter. CJ DUB 19:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No! Six thirds the horsepower for five thirds the displacement is far worse than 16% more horsepower in half the displacement. Everything is relative. You obviously missed the whole point of my calculations, CJ DUB. Also, comparing the Nismo to a hemi (from "family sedan" i assume you mean the 300c) is no more ridiculous than comparing the Koenigsegg to the Nismo. You need to read the comparison-comparison again. haha, thats why i did it.

CJ DUB, if you remember correctly, you asked for sub-3-liter Japanese engines that could get over 345hp. I'm just delivering. I was never comparing the cars--if you look closely, you'll see i only compare power and displacement (as well as mentioning price). You asked which sub-3-liter could do it, and I told you. What is your problem?

No problem at all. I knew you'd go and cite a very rare tuner car. You delivered, all right. By the way, the JD Power site (the one that uses real data) allows you to search my car model not just company. You'll find the Mustang is on par with Honda's limited S2000, in many categories inclduing overall quality, Stang being slightly lower in mechnical and higher in interior qaulity (not bad for a car mfct'd >150,000 times a year). Check it out. These guys know what they are doing. The strongest numbers for new cars come for the IQS. JD Power auto site CJ DUB 23:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC) (PS don't delete my notes IJB TA)

Anyone reading this should see above for why CJ DUB is wrong about the ratings. We already discussed it. Look up.

Additional data
I haven't read through this whole thing yet, but there is something that caught my attention here: "They breath a ton better than Honda engines." A hemi is a two valve engine, it would never have a VE over 95% at its very best. A Honda engine will typically have a VE around 99%. A hemi head could NEVER out flow a 4 valve no matter how much you wish it could. Here's a reference for that, http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/tech_center/turbo_tech103.html IJB TA


 * I think you'll find the hemi is not an ordinary V8. I wasn't talking about the valves only, yes they have only 2. The whole setup is optimized for superior airflow, they have the corrected angles and everything all thru the intake airpath and exhaust, not to mention HUGE valves (2" (51mm) diameter in the 5.7L) and excessive lift. Geez, the pushrods are almost horizontal! The only thing they don't have (but will soon) is variable lift. You may find with some of the modern hemis, at WOT the airflow is equal to a state of the art, production Honda motor. Just for trivia, surface area of the valves in case you're interested,

Hemi 5.7=2042;6.1=2206 sq.mm (1 x 51 or 53 mm valve) S2000 (2.2)=2034 sq mm (2 x 36mm valve) Ford 4.6L 3-valve=3324 sq.mm (2 x 46mm valve) I have read somewhere that the S2000 engine is optimized to use the smaller valves, and gets away with much greater lift. Read this on autoblog: Autoblog article on hemi engines CJ DUB 22:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is about fuel consumption here. Just about all typical modern engines have pretty close BSFC no matter what its size or power output. For example, when a Honda V6 produces 240 hp it will likely have the same or only slightly better BSFC when compared to a Ford V8 producing 240 hp. One reason for the similar performance being that both engines are encountering different kinds of resistance when producing peak power output, the Honda engine mainly from high RPM friction and the Ford mainly from it's high reciprocating mass. So they both end up performing about the same. The big differences in fuel consumption are not usually engine related but from things like weight (by far the biggest factor), the driver, aerodynamic drag, tire rolling resistance, driveline efficiency, etc. A short version of why VTEC is usually very fuel efficient is that the low RPM cam profile is usually very mild, so the engine does not produce a large amount of power at low RPM. The BSFC is about the same as any other engine, but because the engine is producing less power it's using less fuel. A mild low RPM cam also encourages the driver to open the throttle wide when accelerating, which reduces pumping loss and slightly improves BSFC. Honda took that theory and created a VTEC system devoted mainly to reducing pumping loss, http://world.honda.com/HDTV/news/2005-4050705a/index.html. Concerning the "hype" of VTEC. VTEC gave Honda a huge advantage in performance for quite some time, but recently other technologies have enabled other car makers to build cars with similar performance. VTEC is regarded so highly by engine tuners because with aftermarket cams a VTEC engine will produce a very broad, very flat torque curve. I think the NSX may have been the only factory produced VTEC system with aggressive cams for both low and high rpm. It's very possible there is others but I haven't read anything yet that says otherwise. I think there is an explanation for BSFC on the Garrett page above. Also I don't understand why people keep referring to VTEC as a VVT system, it only has two step VVT, and VVT is not even it's main function. The i-VTEC system has VVT for the intake cam plus the cam switching of the VTEC system. IJB TA

it does alter valve timing (though its not infinite). Toyota's system is similar, and its called VVT-i. I wouldn't say it has to be infinitely variable (like Ferrari's) to be called a VVT system.
 * More interesting data CJ DUB 23:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC):

S2000 intake maximum CFM at maximum lift = 185 CFM Hemi 5.7 "  "  "   = 270 CFM

CJ DUB, your not an engineer. You can't simply put numbers up there and expect it to be that simple, these are not lawn mower engines we are dealing with here. I myself am not qualified to explain why 4 valve systems perform as well as they do, but it has to do with the geometry of everything involved, port shape, combustion chamber shape, the way the intake charge flows around the valves, etc. IJB TA
 * (yes i'm aware of that. I staed above that the hemi is superior in these regards) CJ DUB 23:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the reason for the CFM numbers? IJB TA


 * A hemi head could NEVER out flow a 4 valve no matter how much you wish it could. Here's a reference for that..., Re your comments peak CFM is higher in the hemi head. 23:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If the link does not work just go to the Garrett site and to the Tech section, the page I linked to is Turbo Tech 103

CFM: There is also a huge HP/displacement difference there.


 * You don't have to be an engineer to understand it or interpret the numbers. CJ DUB 23:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

So you have a flowbench and a dyno? IJB TA

Nope. I looked the numbers up. I don't have the tel# for Batman (who as you may recall is an engineer). CJ DUB 23:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You really should read the Garrett site before continuing here, otherwise you are not saying anything that holds any weight here. From it you should be able to begin to understand what I am talking about here. IJB TA


 * I'm not reading that whole page. Summary/point please. You wish to indicate that a 2-valve head won't have the VE of a 4-valve? How does this page do that? And anyway, neither of the engies we are dsicussing have supechargers/turbochargers.

You may not want to read the whole page, but I am not going to rewrite the page and more here. Not everything is there, but like I said if you go through it you should be able to begin to understand flow rates, VE, and BSFC. IJB TA


 * At least tell me how its relevant to the argument. I have no idea what you are getting at here re: the topic at hand. CJ DUB 23:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

In order to compare flow rates it must be to engines with similar output. To be truthful I forgot why. It has something to do with the fact that it takes about the same amount of fuel and air to make the same amount of power, hence the reason why BSFC is so close in very different engines. A 1000 hp 8 liter Viper engine will have a similar flow rate as a 1000 hp 3.0 liter Supra engine kind of thing. IJB TA


 * Fine I agree. Hp basically is a function of combustion; 1000 hp is 1000 hp. But don't say 2 valve heads won't flow as good as 4-valve heads. That's quite wrong. CJ DUB 00:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually they will, that's just not the most accurate way to put it. If all things in the design of an engine were the same except the number of valves the four valve head would flow better. The accurate name for it is VE, or in other words, how much fuel/air mixture will FLOW into the cylinder. IJB TA


 * Fine, whatever. I can't envision how that would be possible this evening. The the size of the valves is going to be different. I mean if you take 1 x 36mm valve vs. 2 x 36mm valves, then its gonna be obvious what's better. Did you think about that? Btw. I am way too angry to be writing anything today. CJ DUB 02:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are these arguments even happening? I didn't think Wikipedia was some kind of review site or webboard. And VTEC is a system used on many cars, in many different modes and for many different uses. A/B comparisons of "VTEC" (i.e. the system in general) with individual cars is utterly pointless. Branny76 19:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please pay a little attention !!!! VTEC is one thing VVT is totally different !!!! VTEC controls the lift of the valves (air volume), while VVT (in honda's case i-VTEC = VTEC + VVT) controls "in motion timing advance/retard". Once again "volume intake" against "timing" !!!! 70.127.191.115 06:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

More Hype added
Somebody has included a bunch more POV hype in the "VTEC Experience" section. Please one of you guys remove it. CJ DUB 14:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of the VTEC Experience section is pretty much wrong, I am considering rewriting the whole mess. IJB TA

I don't agree with "seamless," older VTEC designs, even without any modifications, had a significant kick when they switched lobes. Branny76 19:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. My B16A1 had a seamless switch, as proven by a dyno torque and power curve. This is how Honda designed it to work; there is no sense in designing an engine that gives a sudden increase in power - imagine getting a jolt to the front wheels mid-corner when on the limit of adhesion. Much is made of the "VTEC kick" but in an OEM car it is mostly hype based on the appreciable noise change when the cam changes. It's true that a modified VTEC engine can give a kick, normally because the amateur engineer has ruined Honda's finely tuned engine map. The only car I experienced a real kick in was the JDM Prelude 2.2 VTEC and I have read that this was Honda's attempt to keep fuel economy up by leaving the cam switch as late as possible, although this is nothing more than conjecture.Weasley one 18:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits to "The VTEC Experience"
Removed:

"For contrast, another approach at making high power output is to increase the displacement of a given engine (the 7 litre LS7 motor being an extreme example). Increasing displacement solely may slightly harm an engines volumetric efficiency, but can improve engine output. Torque, which is greatly derived from displacement, is more important for performance than horsepower-this is a trend that even Honda engines with VTEC are following."

Torque alone is not important to the performance of an engine and certainly not more important than horsepower. An engine producing X amount of HP will do the same amount of work as any other engine producing the same amount of HP, regardless of the torque output at that RPM. The person that contributed this should also know that some of the fastest cars on the planet produce relatively low peak torque. Also, "The VTEC experience" should not be a comparison of VTEC to other technologies but simply about the experience of driving VTEC equipped vehicles. IJB TA 21:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

VTEC vs non-VTEC
Comparing a Honda engine to a Dodge Hemi -- dumb bec it is comparing apples and oranges.

What is a fair comparison is to compare the non-VTEC Integra motor with the GS-R Integra VTEC motor. Both about 1.8 litres. The VTEC motor - 170 bhp the non-VTEC 140. As for gas mileage, driving from Toronto to Ottawa at or just above the speed limit 6.8 litres per 100kms -- fuel efficient and powerful.


 * What are you talking about? IJB TA 02:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I see, nevermind ;0). IJB TA 15:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In the DOHC VTEC section, the paragraph on Nissan VVL needs to be cited. That whole paragraph is a bit biased as can be witnessed by the last sentence. It should be corrected with data and made to be more neutral or removed altogether. Pcw168 11:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, removed. IJB TA 05:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"For the education institution, see Virginia Tech."
I find this offensive and misplaced. 76.176.97.204 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How is this in anyway offensive? It specifically refers to the school, not the tragedy.

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 Acura TL
What was the source of information on the SOHC VTEC system in the 2009 TL? IJB TA (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Super VTEC
On September 10th, 2011 Honda introduced the S-VTEC (Super VTEC) system — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.208.94 (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Variatore di Fase Alfa Romeo
See "Variatore di Fase Alfa Romeo" in the Wikipedia Italiano. No English translation available — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.28.82 (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can read Italian pretty well and that page doesn't mention VTEC except to say that it is another type of VVT. -- Daniel 21:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This article makes false claims
The article claims that VTEC was invented by Honda. This is not true. VTEC is the commcercial name that Honda provided to an electronically controlled version of the Alfa Romeo Variatore di Fase, invented and Patented by Alfa Romeo in 1980 and first installed on the Alfa Romeo Spider 1750.
 * You will have to provide a source if you want to change the article. -- Daniel 22:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The source is in Variatore di Fase Alfa Romeo Wikipedia Italiano
Also if you had an understanding of internal combustion engines you would know just by looking at both blue prints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.28.82 (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is only one source in the article and it doesn't mention what you claim either. I understand that you think they are similar, but that doesn't mean that Honda copied Alfa.  VVT has been around before either system.  If this connection is so obvious you shouldn't have a problem finding someone else who thinks so. -- Daniel  22:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Daniel, the evidence is just in front of your eyes in the blueprints
You just refuse to acknowledge it. Please stop vandalizing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.33.132.35 (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:OR. We don't analyze blueprints and draw our own conclusions here, we simpley report what reliable sources have said. -- Daniel  23:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Those blueprints are explicitly variable valve TIMING. VTEC's primary relevance as innovative technology were not related to valve TIMING. they were related to variable valve LIFT. Please refresh your memory about VTEC. notice how there are 3 lobes per cylinder on, at the very least, the intake camshaft (and later on, both). That was unheard of before VTEC, but VVT controlled by adjustment of cam gears that are EXTERNAL components outside of the head, was not unheard of. In fact, VVT was, IIRC, relatively common before VTEC. Variable valve LIFT had never been seen in a commercial production vehicle. A variety of factors can be called upon to explain why this might have been the case. Not the least being that VVL is an inherently complicated mechanical system (way more than VVL), and the manufacturing expertise, engineering expertise, materials science, and electronics integration did not exist prior to the 1990s when the technology was first developed.184.189.220.114 (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Why call for help?
It is peculiar that wikipedia calls for help in improving an article's content! When someone tries to amend the rubbish published his work is immediately reversed. So what is the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.28.94 (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)