 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / October 2005I just test drove a 1997 VTEC Prelude. I can't say I noticed any huge performance gap between it and my 95 LUDE Si
Dear all: My 1995 Prelude was owned by a Middle aged Tech Sgt in the Air Force. She learned some very valuable habbits on how to take care of cars from her father. For example: when she was a teenager, she was not allowed to even drive the car unless the car was cleaned and waxed! Her father instilled in her a sense of pride and joy in having a top notch car. Furthermore, she never drove the car hard and never raced/abused her baby, the Prelude. I am a very happy owner of this 1995 Prelude. I didn't even realize how lucky I was to finid such a great previous owner until today: Today, the difference this kind of caring became very clear to me. I went a drive a 1997 Prelude, thinking that I was going to buy it because it has a VTEC engine. I thought since my 1995 is only an Si model, I could use the extra horses. To my surprise, the 1997 VTEC didn't make the car that much faster. I am not even sure if it was faster at all. I, for one, could not appreciate the VTEC coming on at 5500 rmp. To make matters worse, the 1997 sounded rougher (even though it only has 160,000 miles, while my 1995 has 171,000 miles). Comparing the condition of the cars, my 1995 beats the 1997 hands down. My 1995 is just a joy to drive and is very smooth. The 97 has louder engine sounds and just in general rides rougher. So, it became an easy call to make. I decided not to get the 97 Prelude. Let me be clear: I was very sincere about buying the 97 before I went out there. In fact, I was carrying $4500 in CASH with me. See, when I really test drive a car, I don't waste people's time. I carry the cash with me and I would have bought it if the car had really wowed me. So, here is my observation, now after having driven both a 4th gen and a 5th gen Prelude: 1. How a car is taken care of makes a huge differenct. 2. The VTEC 97 (200hp) and the 95 Si (160hp) really do not have that big of a gap in terms of acceleration from 0-60. 3. The 97 is heavier. 4. The styling of the 97 is less cool than the 95 (the fifth gen is too tame in terms of styling). Points 1-4 translates into my 1995 Lude being more fun to drive than the 1997 one I saw today. If you want to see my 1995 prelude it is here: http://gallery.pethobbyist.com/index.pl?photo=121584&size=big http://gallery.pethobbyist.com/index.pl?photo=121585&size=big http://gallery.pethobbyist.com/index.pl?photo=121586&size=big If you want to see the ad in for the 1997 Lude: it is here: http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=153217437&dealer_id=&car_year=1997&make =HONDA&distance=25&max_price=&model=&advcd_on=n&end_year=1997&min_price=&first_r ecord=51&address=20762&search_type=used&advanced=n&start_year=1997&=&color=&card ist=13 As you can see, just from the picture, you can't tell that 1997 is worse than my 1995, but trust me, the moment you drive the two, you will know that my 1995 was much better taken care of than the 1997. What has been your experience with different generations of cars? Did you find that you improved your lot when you stepped up to the newer generations? I must say, I had expected to be wow'd, but it didn't happen. Maybe my expectations were too high. Who knows. Shrug. sincerely. Dr. Moser. >The VTEC 97 (200hp) and the 95 Si (160hp) really do >not have that big of a gap in terms of acceleration from 0-60. Did you take the VTEC to the redline? > >The VTEC 97 (200hp) and the 95 Si (160hp) really do > >not have that big of a gap in terms of acceleration from 0-60. > > Did you take the VTEC to the redline? did not mean to take to redline, but at one point, I did do it. When I wasn't at redline, I was right below red line. Let me tell ya, I drove the crap out of this Lude on the test drive. But it didn't exceed my expectations. As I say, I may have had my expectation set too high because I had some unrealistic idea of the VTEC dual cam. sincerely. I own a '98 and once it hits 5000rpm it moves. Maybe something was wrong with the one you took for a test drive. Perhaps something was wrong with the ECU? I know that if the speed sensor is malfunctioning V-TEC won't work. I'm sure there are other things that could cause it not to kick in > > >The VTEC 97 (200hp) and the 95 Si (160hp) really do > > >not have that big of a gap in terms of acceleration from 0-60. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > sincerely. The last time I drove the new Lude, the Vtec kick-in was dramatic. But the car had a cold air intake and performance exhaust (and dropped). In fact with the Lude, gearing from 5th into 2nd gear (which instantly took the rpm to over 5500rpm) was more impressive when compared to RSX Type-S in the same situation. I suspect the Ludes more sporty response was do to the minor performance add ons. However, even with the performance add-ons, the Type-S was all round faster (being able to hold the Vtec till 8000rpm instead of 7000rpm makes a huge difference). Obviously, the 97 Lude that you test drove is not a good example of that model's ability. Personally, I'd take the 95 since the interior is more reminiscence of the CRX and the seating is more suited for my larger frame. Pars > > >The VTEC 97 (200hp) and the 95 Si (160hp) really do > > >not have that big of a gap in terms of acceleration from 0-60. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > sincerely. > The last time I drove the new Lude, the Vtec kick-in was dramatic. But the car had a cold air intake and > performance exhaust (and dropped). In fact with the Lude, gearing from 5th into 2nd gear (which [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'd take the 95 since the interior is more reminiscence of the CRX and the seating is more suited for my > larger frame. I suspect the difference between the Prelude and the RSX was because of the differences in way the V-tec system is set up in both cars, rather than the exhaust and intake fiddling. The RSX is the Integra here in the UK, and it's a much sportier car than the prelude. From what I understand the Type S is a slightly detuned Type R (the hottest Integra/RSX) so that it can run on lower grade fuel. I'd expect the standard (ie, pre vtec switch point) cam in the Type S to be designed for more power than the standard cam in a Prelude, so the V-tec kick in the back will be less pronounced. > > >The VTEC 97 (200hp) and the 95 Si (160hp) really do > > >not have that big of a gap in terms of acceleration from 0-60. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > sincerely. Prelude may be too much car to feel any diff. Try a Del Sol VTEC if you can find one. You will be surprised what a difference 200 hp in that little thing. > Dear all: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not allowed to even drive the car unless the car was cleaned and > waxed! Must have been fun in the winter. > > Dear all: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Must have been fun in the winter. Funny you should mention that. I bought the car in the dead of winter and the car was waxed! She says that even in weather like this, she would still go out there and wax it, just because it has become a habbit and she really respects her car. I can't say that I have kept up with her habbit. In fact, the car is definitely in need of a wash and a spray (ie wash away all the salt). It takes a lot of work to keep a car clean and in tip top running condition! sincerely. > > > Dear all: > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > and a spray (ie wash away all the salt). It takes a lot of work to > keep a car clean and in tip top running condition! As much as I love a shiny clean waxed car, it is too much for me to keep the salt off in the winter. Within a day it's covered again, plus it can be hard to wash the car when it's cold out. Although when it is mild out I do try to wash off all the salt, and I'm sure to wax it up before and after winter. > Dear all: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 1995 Prelude. I didn't even realize how lucky I was to finid such a > great previous owner until today: OK, this doesn't make any sense... You imply that you're the second owner of a very well cared for car and now you're abusing it by spinning out the tires on some oil just to make some nifty pictures? Go Figure! Perhaps you didn't learn anything from the prior owner's diligence. > If you want to see my 1995 prelude it is here: > http://gallery.pethobbyist.com/index.pl?photo=121584&size=big So very tasteful. Pure rice. > > If you want to see my 1995 prelude it is here: > > http://gallery.pethobbyist.com/index.pl?photo=121584&size=big > > So very tasteful. Pure rice. Headlights must have amazing range. Isn't it not good to floor a FWD when the wheels are turned full lock? > > > If you want to see my 1995 prelude it is here: > > > http://gallery.pethobbyist.com/index.pl?photo=121584&size=big [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Isn't it not good to floor a FWD when the wheels are turned full lock? No. No. No. You guys. You guys have it all wrong. The wheels are not spinning at all in those pics! Please take another look. The smoking pictures were not done with oil or with the engine revving or the back wheels locked! I would never ever abuse my baby like that. Beside if you guys were right, then are you saying that this Legend 1995 GS with a type II 230 HP engine was abused the same way (see pic below)? Let me be very up-front and say that NO. Neither the Legend (Mint and Rare find because it is GS and black on black) NOR the Lude was in the least bit abused during the making of these special effects action shots. JUST LOOK AT THE WHEELS. (in the pic, the wheels are not spinning AT ALL!) here are the Legend pics: http://gallery.pethobbyist.com/index.pl?photo=121791&size=big http://gallery.pethobbyist.com/index.pl?photo=121790 http://gallery.pethobbyist.com/index.pl?photo=121795 http://gallery.pethobbyist.com/index.pl?photo=121792 Let me know if you were able to see the wheels sitting completely static and non-moving. sincerely. Dr. Moser. >>>> If you want to see my 1995 prelude it is here: >>>>http://gallery.pethobbyist.com/index.pl?photo=121584&size=big [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > sincerely. Dr. Moser. Obviously without LSD you could have one wheel spinning and the other static. How do you explain the smoke coming out of the left hand front wheelarch then? -- James On 2/10/04 5:50 AM, in article c0agi1$pq2$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk, >>>>> If you want to see my 1995 prelude it is here: >>>>> http://gallery.pethobbyist.com/index.pl?photo=121584&size=big [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > -- > James Uh, look closely at the first picture - there is no driver in the car. > > How do you explain the smoke coming out of the left hand front wheelarch > > then? > > -- > > James > > Uh, look closely at the first picture - there is no driver in the car. Maybe he just washed the engine at the car wash, and is running it to dry it out. > >>>> If you want to see my 1995 prelude it is here: > >>>>http://gallery.pethobbyist.com/index.pl?photo=121584&size=big [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > How do you explain the smoke coming out of the left hand front wheelarch > then? The way I got these action shots was by parking the cars over a steam vent. See, in the east coast, the weather is very cold and such. The steam is very good and thick in the winter. It looks like smoke. I don't think that some cold steam to the bottom of the car would hurt any cars. The vent was letting out cold steam. Not hot steam. I can stand over the vent and the temp is just air temp. The way I got the idea was just one day, I was drivng by the base library and there are these vents on the ground. It is an Air Force base. They have these steam vents. I got the silly idea of seeing what it would look like if a car was parked over the vent. The result was these very good action shots. No cars were harmed during the filming of these images. >No cars were harmed during the filming of these images. Only mental giants black-out their headlights. > > > > If you want to see my 1995 prelude it is here: > > > > http://gallery.pethobbyist.com/index.pl?photo=121584&size=big [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > sincerely. Dr. Moser. Why "add" smoke after when in your other pics there is no driver in the car? are you trying to show that the car is overheating? I dont understand..... Also the description of the black car says Peeling out ? Are you ok????? >> "223rem" <223rem@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message >> Isn't it not good to floor a FWD when the wheels are turned full lock? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >or with the engine revving or the back wheels locked! I would never >ever abuse my baby like that. I always abuse my cars horribly. Got to teach them who is master, I reckon. It has amazingly little effect on tyre life, too. I was helping someone to horribly abuse a 25 year old car yesterday, we had it in fourth, second, handbrake on hard and then tried to start it, over and over again. All sorts of noises, and it got especially smelly when we had it up to about forty in second and then locked up the wheels with the throttles wide open. The clutch finally gave up resisting our demands and freed itself with a major thump, but it was fun while it lasted. Goodness knows what anyone watching would have thought we were up to. Loads of smoke. <snippage> > To make matters worse, the 1997 sounded rougher (even though it > only has 160,000 miles, while my 1995 has 171,000 miles). Comparing [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 97 is heavier. 4. The styling of the 97 is less cool than the 95 > (the fifth gen is too tame in terms of styling). <more snippage> > What has been your experience with different generations of cars? > Did you find that you improved your lot when you stepped up to the > newer generations? I must say, I had expected to be wow'd, but it > didn't happen. Maybe my expectations were too high. Who knows. > Shrug. Think along the lines of Si engine will be revving lower, and if it's owned by someone with a lot of pride in their car and has a technical background, it's very likely that at the very least it's been serviced as per the schedule, if not had interim oil changes. A V-tec car will be likely to have stiffer suspension simply because it's a sportier model. I'll give you another clue. THE 97 CAR IS HEAVIER, SO IT NEEDS MORE POWER TO ACELLERATE AS QUICKLY AS A 95. Not feeling a kick in the back when the V-tec is meant to kick in suggests to me that it's broken... Go and drive 10 or 20 97 V-tecs and the same number of 95 Si cars, and see which in general is better. It's not unknown for cars to get worse when they're updated, but two cars which came off the production line one after the other, built to the same standards can drive very differently if one's perfectly maintained and the other has had oil changes neglected and the suspension's worn. > sincerely. Dr. Moser. And less of the crossposting please. I'm not sure if you read most of the groups on this list so I've continued the crosspost... > Si model, I could use the extra horses. To my surprise, the 1997 VTEC > didn't make the car that much faster. I am not even sure if it was > faster at all. I, for one, could not appreciate the VTEC coming on at > 5500 rmp. VTEC's w.nk, end of story. Just out of interest, why does this oh so wonderful anechdote need to be crossposted ?  SignatureLordy > > Si model, I could use the extra horses. To my surprise, the 1997 VTEC > > didn't make the car that much faster. I am not even sure if it was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Just out of interest, why does this oh so wonderful anechdote need to be > crossposted ? So the people in alt.honda know that VTEC's are w.nk :) SignatureDan http://www.danontherun.com > > VTEC's w.nk, end of story. > > > > Just out of interest, why does this oh so wonderful anechdote need to be > > crossposted ? > > So the people in alt.honda know that VTEC's are w.nk :) Surely they do already - I mean, they do actually drive the things don't they ? SignatureLordy > > > VTEC's w.nk, end of story. > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Surely they do already - I mean, they do actually drive the things don't > they ? Dunno - would you? SignatureDan http://www.danontherun.com I was the owner of 3 different Del Sol's at one time, a 93 S with 105? HP, a 93 Si with 125 HP and a 94 VTEC with 160 HP. All were taken care of very well. I agree with your theory about maltreated vehicles, but if you didn't notice any difference between the 2, then you don't know how to get what is in there out. I agree that 0-60 acceleration is not a great indicator, but there was a difference I'm sure. I notice the biggest advantage with the VTEC engine is for passing ability (there is no comparison) and the performance in a headwind or on severe uphills. Somebody else mentioned something that is relevant, you've got to 'use' the revs in those engines. You have to get to know the car and find the power bands. > Dear all: > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > If you want to see the ad in for the 1997 Lude: it is here: http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=153217437&dealer_id=&car_year=1997& make=HONDA&distance=25&max_price=&model=&advcd_on=n&end_year=1997&min_price= &first_record=51&address=20762&search_type=used&advanced=n&start_year=1997&= &color=&cardist=13 > As you can see, just from the picture, you can't tell that 1997 > is worse than my 1995, but trust me, the moment you drive the two, you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > sincerely. Dr. Moser. Just compare the maximum torques per engines specs, you'll see the extra torque is <3% if capacity ( cc ) is constant How can a little extra torque give any *huge performance gap ? You need to drive a MaClaren to get a *. Even iVtec is insignificant compared to e.g. Saab's turbo or Mercedes's super charger ( 12% extra torque ). Just a set of high efficiency plug cables on my buddy's 9-97 CRV gives 15% extra torque. > Just a set of high efficiency plug > cables on my buddy's 9-97 CRV gives 15% extra torque. Amazing. Where did you dyno it, and what where the numbers? >> Just a set of high efficiency plug >> cables on my buddy's 9-97 CRV gives 15% extra torque. > >Amazing. >Where did you dyno it, and what where the numbers? Dunno if you missed it but this is the guy who goes on about all the power lost to the digital clock. Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? > >> Just a set of high efficiency plug > >> cables on my buddy's 9-97 CRV gives 15% extra torque. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Dunno if you missed it but this is the guy who goes on about all the power > lost to the digital clock. Yeah, I know. And battery terminals made out of copper and not silver. I can never remember what name he posts under. :) >>> Just a set of high efficiency plug >>> cables on my buddy's 9-97 CRV gives 15% extra torque. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Dunno if you missed it but this is the guy who goes on about all the power >lost to the digital clock. Oh god yer right. I remember him explaining why it was theoretically impossible for a Honda ignition system to operate beyond 3000 rpm. correction : Mercedes C200K 's super charger gives 21% extra torque. | Where did you dyno it No need to use elaborate equipment to estimate %age torque rise ; Newton's law says acceleration (m/s?) = force ( N ) ? mass (kg), I modify this to = ( force - friction / resistance ) ? mass. If acceleration ( esp when climbing hill / slope ) rises by 15%, mass & friction remain constant, then torque must have risen by nearly 15%. >correction : Mercedes C200K 's super charger gives 21% extra torque. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >( esp when climbing hill / slope ) rises by 15%, mass & friction remain >constant, then torque must have risen by nearly 15%. What all this verbal diarrhea boils down to is; if the car accelerates faster, the power must have increased. Of course he thinks he is being clever by saying torque increased instead of power when, for a given engine speed, they are directly related. Hey Cheah Pet. You want torque? How about an engine that produces 1000ft-lb at 50 rpm? How fast do you think that will go up Pikes Peak? Did I mention it redlines at 50 rpm. Have fun. > Just a set of high efficiency plug cables on my > buddy's 9-97 CRV gives 15% extra torque. lol, don't talk such utter shite. SignatureLordy > Just compare the maximum torques per engines specs, you'll see the > extra torque is <3% if capacity ( cc ) is constant How can a little extra [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > super charger ( 12% extra torque ). Just a set of high efficiency plug > cables on my buddy's 9-97 CRV gives 15% extra torque. That's because your "buddy" is either a lying shite or he didn't have HT leads / the old ones were buggered before he put the high efficiency ones on. Tell him to compare his "high efficiency" leads to a set from the Honda parts desk. Go and dyno the car and you will find no difference in power beyond normal dyno errors. You can put a massive coil on the car, or put shedloads of coils on, but as long as your existing ignition system works, you won't gain any extra power. The only time you'll need to put a different ignition system on is when you're increasing the revs, so you need a spark more often, or you're altering the charge / plugs so that it's harder for the spark to jump the gap. You don't get any extra power to speak of on a modern normally aspirated engine without messing with the internals. Anyway, everyone who knows anything knows the point of V-tec is to switch to a lairy cam at high engine speeds, so that you can have good low speed running and fuel economy when you're tootling around town, and then when you want to go fast you get some revs on, the hot cam comes on and you get more top end power. It's all about the revs (and thus power) in a V-tec motor rather than providing torque. If they were about torque they'd be 4 litre motors instead of 2. | you will find no difference in power beyond normal dyno errors. Honda prescribes plug gaps of just 1 to 1.1mm, because [i] the built-in coil is small [ii] the Sumitomo carbon-core cables ( 6323 ohm/ft )' efficiency is low www.magnecor.com/magnecor1/truth.htm . My plugs ( fed by these hi-eff cables, 2 ohm/ft, in a F20A )' gaps are 3mm , to get a 3mm long spark to burn petrol vapour fstr = more torque. This must not be done on any 4 cylinder engine with just a small built-in coil & plain carbon-core cables ; a 1mm gap needs just 4.46kv, but a 3mm gap needs 12kv to produce a spark. My hi-eff cables can feed enough voltage & ampere to my 3mm gaps with out any fst drop in torque, or noise rise, up to 3350rpm ( no chance / need to spin fstr ; legal speed limit = 110kph ). Skeptics can set their gaps to 3mm, then feel how fst torque drops & hear how fst exhaust noise rises, @>3000rpm, because voltage & ampere across gaps will both be too low, engine will likely stall by 4500rpm. | You don't get any extra power to speak of on a modern normally | aspirated engine without messing with the internals. Bullshit. My brother's '94 Mitsubishi 6G72 engine's coil got a 1' long hi- eff cable ( fr me ) to feed high voltage to distributor cap's 6 carbon-core cables, the # of ohms reduced was just 2890, yet acceleration ( & torque ) rose by 10% ( he estimated ). In '94 a similar change I did to a '89 Nissan sentra's 1' long coil-cable reduced # of ohms by 6000, torque rose 10-15% per the chauffer who drove it daily. | It's all about the revs (and thus power) in a V-tec motor | rather than providing torque. On roads with speed limit, an engine with auto gearbox have no chance to spin @>3500rpm, so torque is relevant, power is not. > | you will find no difference in power beyond normal dyno errors. > Honda prescribes plug gaps of just 1 to 1.1mm, because [i] the built-in [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > On roads with speed limit, an engine with auto gearbox have no chance to > spin @>3500rpm, so torque is relevant, power is not. That's the biggest load of tosh I've ever read in my life ! The manufacturer of your car ALREADY fits plugs with the correct gapping, and leads that are more-than upto the job - why on earth would they do otherwise ?!?!? > > | you will find no difference in power beyond normal dyno errors. > > Honda prescribes plug gaps of just 1 to 1.1mm, because [i] the built-in > > coil is small [ii] the Sumitomo carbon-core cables ( 6323 ohm/ft )' > > efficiency is low www.magnecor.com/magnecor1/truth.htm . "Magnecor does not claim its Race Wires increase horsepower, and any horsepower gained by the use of Magnecor Race Wires results entirely from the ability of the wires to maintain full conductance and suppress EMI that previously robbed the engine of horsepower" From their own website! > That's the biggest load of tosh I've ever read in my life ! > > The manufacturer of your car ALREADY fits plugs with the correct gapping, > and leads that are more-than upto the job - why on earth would they do > otherwise ?!?!? >| you will find no difference in power beyond normal dyno errors. >Honda prescribes plug gaps of just 1 to 1.1mm, because [i] the built-in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >how fst exhaust noise rises, @>3000rpm, because voltage & ampere across >gaps will both be too low, engine will likely stall by 4500rpm. That's why we gap the plugs correctly. As for getting more torque this way, I can't imagine it would be enough to justify screwing up your engine. >| You don't get any extra power to speak of on a modern normally >| aspirated engine without messing with the internals. >Bullshit. My brother's '94 Mitsubishi 6G72 engine's coil got a 1' long hi- >eff cable ( fr me ) to feed high voltage to distributor cap's 6 carbon-core >cables, the # of ohms reduced was just 2890, yet acceleration ( & torque ) >rose by 10% ( he estimated ). Well, I estimate it dropped by 10% so averaging them together you get no change in performance. >In '94 a similar change I did to a '89 Nissan sentra's 1' long coil-cable >reduced # of ohms by 6000, torque rose 10-15% per the chauffer who >drove it daily. Another subjective guess - from a Nissan Sentra chauffeur this time. How much faster will it get when you disconnect the clock? >| It's all about the revs (and thus power) in a V-tec motor >| rather than providing torque. >On roads with speed limit, an engine with auto gearbox have no chance to >spin @>3500rpm, so torque is relevant, power is not. Sorry you don't have any good roads around there. I live in Chicago and manage to use all 8000 rpm on my GS-R fairly often. Certainly get it well over 3500 every time I drive it. Auto gearbox shouldn't make much difference. >Just compare the maximum torques per engines specs, you'll see the >extra torque is <3% if capacity ( cc ) is constant How can a little extra [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >super charger ( 12% extra torque ). Just a set of high efficiency plug >cables on my buddy's 9-97 CRV gives 15% extra torque. Amazing, really. There's Honda spending, well, must be into the billions on R&D to squeeze out maybe 1% extra torque here, or a few more bhp there, and all the time all they had to do was put phat leads on to get a fifth more grunt. Next, they'll add the magic air filter and double the power output. >>Just compare the maximum torques per engines specs, you'll see the >>extra torque is <3% if capacity ( cc ) is constant How can a little extra [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Next, they'll add the magic air filter and double the power output. Dont forget the magnet to align the fuel molecules. >>Just compare the maximum torques per engines specs, you'll see the >>extra torque is <3% if capacity ( cc ) is constant How can a little extra [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >to squeeze out maybe 1% extra torque here, or a few more bhp there, and all the >time all they had to do was put phat leads on to get a fifth more grunt. Amazing how clueless you guys are, you mean. The VTEC allows the engine to make good torque at higher RPM's, and power=torque*RPM, thus the noticable POWER increase. Also, the fact that they can spin the motor faster allows a shorter gear ratio, which puts more TORQUE at the WHEELS. > >>Just compare the maximum torques per engines specs, you'll see the > >>extra torque is <3% if capacity ( cc ) is constant How can a little extra [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > motor faster allows a shorter gear ratio, which puts more TORQUE at > the WHEELS. What does that have to do with bullshit power claims from HT leads? SignatureDan http://www.danontherun.com >>> Just compare the maximum torques per engines specs, you'll see the >>> extra torque is <3% if capacity ( cc ) is constant How can a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > motor faster allows a shorter gear ratio, which puts more TORQUE at > the WHEELS. Er, read his post again. Somehow, you COMPLETELY misunderstood ! >Er, read his post again. Somehow, you COMPLETELY misunderstood ! Wrong, moron. Dizzy wrote: >> Er, read his post again. Somehow, you COMPLETELY misunderstood ! > > Wrong, moron. Politely f.ck OFF AND TAKE YOUR ATTITUDE SOMEWHERE ELSE sir. You DID misunderstand his post. Calling me a moron because of it, kinda identifies you as a complete lummox. >>>> Just compare the maximum torques per engines specs, you'll see the >>>> extra torque is <3% if capacity ( cc ) is constant How can a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Er, read his post again. Somehow, you COMPLETELY misunderstood ! Never mind. I didn't recognize antispam's sarcasm. > Amazing how clueless you guys are, you mean. The VTEC allows the > engine to make good torque at higher RPM's Which is w.nk. Sensible people would rather have an engine that makes good torque at low RPM. > Also, the fact that they can spin the motor faster allows a > shorter gear ratio, which puts more TORQUE at the WHEELS. Not if you haven't got much torque to put there... SignatureLordy > > Amazing how clueless you guys are, you mean. The VTEC allows the > > engine to make good torque at higher RPM's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Not if you haven't got much torque to put there... Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races. Try a decent forced-induction or big capacity engine, and /then/ notice a "huge performance gap". > -- > Lordy >> Also, the fact that they can spin the motor faster allows a >> shorter gear ratio, which puts more TORQUE at the WHEELS. > > Not if you haven't got much torque to put there... Two cars producing the same power, at the same road speed, will have the same torque at the wheels. Torque at the engine is irrelevant if the gearing is properly sorted. >> Amazing how clueless you guys are, you mean. The VTEC allows the >> engine to make good torque at higher RPM's > >Which is w.nk. Sensible people would rather have an engine that makes >good torque at low RPM. Kinda ironic coming from someone in the U.K. You must feel deprived of your favorite fetish. >> Also, the fact that they can spin the motor faster allows a >> shorter gear ratio, which puts more TORQUE at the WHEELS. > >Not if you haven't got much torque to put there... Obviously you are seemingly unsure of the meaning of torque - you should read up on it. Whether you get torque at the wheels from a high revving engine driving a low gear ratio, from the same engine with forced induction driving a higher gear ratio or from a big ol' thumpwhacker driving a higher gear ratio is irrelevant. The pinnacle of current racing technology, with self-imposed safety limitations on max attainable speeds, i.e. "torque at the wheels", does seem to favor the first as a practical solution. Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? >>> Amazing how clueless you guys are, you mean. The VTEC allows the >>> engine to make good torque at higher RPM's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of > your favorite fetish. No - careful choosing can net you a car that makes it's full 240Nm from 2100rpm upwards, with a completely flat torque curve. >>> Also, the fact that they can spin the motor faster allows a >>> shorter gear ratio, which puts more TORQUE at the WHEELS. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with forced induction driving a higher gear ratio or from a big ol' > thumpwhacker driving a higher gear ratio is irrelevant. No - it's only irrelevent from a performance point of view. From a "nice to drive" point of view, it's much better to make more lower down torque instead - you don't need to change gear when you want to overtake, and you don't need to sound like a screaming banshee if you wanna make quick progress. >>> Sensible people would rather have an engine that >>> makes good torque at low RPM. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No - careful choosing can net you a car that makes it's full 240Nm > from 2100rpm upwards, with a completely flat torque curve. Indeed, the saab 2.3 turbo lump produces 350nm, which by my reckoning is roughly equivalent to what a 4 litre NA engine might be expected to produce. It's no small-block chevy, but it's not exactly limp-wristed. >>>> Amazing how clueless you guys are, you mean. The VTEC allows the >>>> engine to make good torque at higher RPM's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >No - careful choosing can net you a car that makes it's full 240Nm from >2100rpm upwards, with a completely flat torque curve. Flattish maybe and upwards to what?... severely rev limited in most cases. It's also gonna cost a lot more that its TMV in the U.K. >>>> Also, the fact that they can spin the motor faster allows a >>>> shorter gear ratio, which puts more TORQUE at the WHEELS. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >No - it's only irrelevent from a performance point of view. No - it's irrelevAnt for anyone who actually enjoys driving. >From a "nice to drive" point of view, it's much better to make more lower >down torque instead - you don't need to change gear when you want to >overtake, and you don't need to sound like a screaming banshee if you wanna >make quick progress. With a 2.5Krpm or so power band, you're gonna have to change gear anyway... or let the auto-trans usually fitted do it for you. Drive like Gra'ma if you want. Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? >>>>> Amazing how clueless you guys are, you mean. The VTEC allows the >>>>> engine to make good torque at higher RPM's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Flattish maybe Completely flat - it's electronically limited. > and upwards to what? Just below the redline, at about 6000rpm. > ... severely rev limited in most > cases. Nope. That's not relevent anyway - I spend approximately 0% of my time above 5500rpm :) > It's also gonna cost a lot more that its TMV in the U.K. TMV ? >>>>> Also, the fact that they can spin the motor faster allows a >>>>> shorter gear ratio, which puts more TORQUE at the WHEELS. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > No - it's irrelevAnt for anyone who actually enjoys driving. That would be me. As someone who enjoys driving, I want lots of low-down torque, and I don't want to have to rev my car hard to make quick progress - and my passengers don't want to sit in a jerky noise-box for the whole journey ! >> From a "nice to drive" point of view, it's much better to make more >> lower down torque instead - you don't need to change gear when you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > With a 2.5Krpm or so power band, you're gonna have to change gear > anyway... Yep. That's why you buy a Turbo car with a 4000rpm power band. See above for details. > or let the auto-trans usually fitted do it for you. There is no automatic version of the Turbo engine in question. Anyhow, people don't drive Autos here in the UK - they're very uncommon. > Drive > like Gra'ma if you want. Nope. I quite like hooning around in my 200bhp car, thanks :) >>>>>> Amazing how clueless you guys are, you mean. The VTEC allows the >>>>>> engine to make good torque at higher RPM's [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Nope. That's not relevent anyway - I spend approximately 0% of my time above >5500rpm :) Well that's a matter of taste and *your* preference. It appears you have a turbo, something that many would rather pass on. Anyway none of the marques which do turbos appeal to me for various reasons. Do you have to make such a mess, by carving posts you're replying to into bite sized chunks you can handle? >> It's also gonna cost a lot more that its TMV in the U.K. > >TMV ? True market value. >>>>>> Also, the fact that they can spin the motor faster allows a >>>>>> shorter gear ratio, which puts more TORQUE at the WHEELS. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >want to have to rev my car hard to make quick progress - and my passengers >don't want to sit in a jerky noise-box for the whole journey ! That's your taste/preference again then. There's no need to get "jerky"... once the art of gear changing is mastered. >>> From a "nice to drive" point of view, it's much better to make more >>> lower down torque instead - you don't need to change gear when you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Yep. That's why you buy a Turbo car with a 4000rpm power band. See above for >details. Not me - I want nothing to do with turbos. <<snip>> >> Drive >> like Gra'ma if you want. > >Nope. I quite like hooning around in my 200bhp car, thanks :) <snigger> Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? > Do you have to make such a mess, by carving posts you're replying to into > bite sized chunks you can handle? It's standard enough if you're snipping the bits you're not replying to. It allows one to make far more concise posts. > >TMV ? > > True market value. True market value is what people are generally willing to pay for something. What you think it's worth is pretty irrelevant. Things don't cost more than true market value unless you're an idiot with no idea what the thing you're buying is worse. FYI the model of turbo car both Lordy and Nom own is a very good buy. > >As someone who enjoys driving, I want lots of low-down torque, and I don't > >want to have to rev my car hard to make quick progress - and my passengers > >don't want to sit in a jerky noise-box for the whole journey ! > > That's your taste/preference again then. There's no need to get "jerky"... > once the art of gear changing is mastered. <snip> > >Nope. I quite like hooning around in my 200bhp car, thanks :) > > <snigger> 100bhp / litre with masses of torque VS 100bhp a litre with relatively little torque? I know which I'd rather have. In a decent car the turbo lag shouldn't be a problem compared to having to change down 2 gears to get any go in a high revving motor. Most people do not want to be driving around at 6k RPM when they're waiting to overtake some old dodderer. Of course, if I were picking I'd have a >3000cc straight six. >> Do you have to make such a mess, by carving posts you're replying to into >> bite sized chunks you can handle? > >It's standard enough if you're snipping the bits you're not replying to. It >allows one to make far more concise posts. By no means is it standard to snip out short phrases and sentences - uhhh, there's a batter way! It turns a "thread" into a disjointed unreadable mess which cannot be answered without making things worse. >> >TMV ? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >buying is worse. FYI the model of turbo car both Lordy and Nom own is a very >good buy. Like I should have said in my previous reply, look up TMV - it doesn't mean what you think it does. Whether a turbo is a "good buy" to you, Lordy, or Nom - given your chameleon presence here, one wonders if they are, in fact, different entities - is not of any consequence to me. I can't speak for others. ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >6k RPM when they're waiting to overtake some old dodderer. Of course, if I >were picking I'd have a >3000cc straight six. "Decent"... "turbo" do not go together from my POV... but I do no pretend to speak for "most people". It sounds like you should maybe consider moving to the U.S. and getting yourself a 5L V8.:-) Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? > Do you have to make such a mess, by carving posts you're replying to > into bite sized chunks you can handle? No, I don't have to. But I choose to :) >>> It's also gonna cost a lot more that its TMV in the U.K. >> >> TMV ? > > True market value. Ah. > Not me - I want nothing to do with turbos. Why not ? > >>>> Amazing how clueless you guys are, you mean. The VTEC allows the > >>>> engine to make good torque at higher RPM's [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? Sorry about the previous post of mine, hit send before I engaged my brain! (c: > Flattish maybe and upwards to what?... severely rev limited in most cases. > It's also gonna cost a lot more that its TMV in the U.K. TMV? True Market Value of what? The UK car (Rover 600Ti) Nom's talking about is pretty cheap, and is worth a very small proportion of its new cost once the first owner has taken the hit of tax and depreciation. For a car of similar power size and specification nothing really comes close here. For some it would be below TMV if I understand what you mean by it. If you mean the TMV new, I cant comment as I dont know what price they were. Douglas >Sorry about the previous post of mine, hit send before I engaged my brain! >(c: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >For some it would be below TMV if I understand what you mean by it. If you >mean the TMV new, I cant comment as I dont know what price they were. Seems like the state of the U.K. car industry reflects pretty well what its own citizens thought of the quality - 'nuff said. Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? > Seems like the state of the U.K. car industry reflects pretty well > what its own citizens thought of the quality - 'nuff said. Yes, and that's a good thing. I dunno about you, but I certainly like buying very cheap cars ! My car was ?21,000 brand new. I bought it 5 years old, with 48,000 miles, for ?4000. > >Sorry about the previous post of mine, hit send before I engaged my brain! > >(c: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Seems like the state of the U.K. car industry reflects pretty well what its > own citizens thought of the quality - 'nuff said. Why do americans and australians always do that? When there's nowhere left to go, just make fun of the British car industry. UK car manufacturers were pretty good around the 1950's and 60's. They were messed around a bit by the government in the 1970's and then the trade unions got all uppity and signed the industry's death warrant by striking for a laugh every 5 minutes which was a joke. Perhaps it a had a bit to do with the economic climate in the UK at the time as well. FWIW, I believe that originally companies like Honda copied some old british car designs, improved them over time, and are now major players in a world market, to the point where they owned a large part of Rover untill recently. Kind of Ironic really. The way I see it, british car manufacturers tried to rest on their laurels (because at one point the UK was an engineering centre of excellence) while everyone else kept developing. Why can't you buy many american built cars in the UK? Doesnt that show you what faith British people have in American car manufacturers quality? Why do many big japanese and european companies choose to built cars in the UK? It's probably import tax related, but it is possible to build decent quality cars here cost effectively when theres less socialism involved. Douglas >> >"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in >message [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >Why do americans and australians always do that? When there's nowhere left >to go, just make fun of the British car industry. I didn't... make fun of it... and probably less than I deride the U.S. car industry. It was a great tragedy the way the U.K. industry was brought down and of course somewhat corresponded with the rise of the U.K. auto racing industry. There was obviously raw talent being squandered by the likes of Rubery Owen, Lucas and other sub-standard OE suppliers. Now the U.K. racing industry is in the process of being brought down by the greed of the principals, the corrupt court system and a governement (CE and domestic) bent on meddling the economy to death - plus ça change.... The Germans seem to be wallowing in it.... again!:-( >UK car manufacturers were pretty good around the 1950's and 60's. They were >messed around a bit by the government in the 1970's and then the trade >unions got all uppity and signed the industry's death warrant by striking >for a laugh every 5 minutes which was a joke. Perhaps it a had a bit to do >with the economic climate in the UK at the time as well. From my POV it was as much a management problem as a union problem. Surely a bunch of the country's educated elite could have been expected to do better at managing the unwashed mass. What the hell did they teach them in their ivory towers of learning? Certainly many of the crippling strikes, notably Rootes in Acton, which was a result of a single shop steward who called a wildcat action which brought the whole organization to its knees, were not union led. There was plenty of blame to go around. >FWIW, I believe that originally companies like Honda copied some old british >car designs, improved them over time, and are now major players in a world >market, to the point where they owned a large part of Rover untill recently. >Kind of Ironic really. Yes it's very ironic. The Japs copied the U.K. engine and other subsytem designs - don't forget the motorcycles - and the Yanks taught them how to do quality control.<shrug> Now they're making an a.s out of the U.S. auto industry. Mind you, knowing a bit about how things actually work at the Jap auto mfrs, they'll get their turn eventually.... maybe India or China, or some other new ecomomic power, will take their pants down. >The way I see it, british car manufacturers tried to rest on their laurels >(because at one point the UK was an engineering centre of excellence) while >everyone else kept developing. Though there were exceptions, there wasn't really a problem with the engineering, for its day - the materials/assembly/finish was a disgrace. Even the non-strike-bound cars were only passable in the international market. >Why can't you buy many american built cars in the UK? Doesnt that show you >what faith British people have in American car manufacturers quality? Why >do many big japanese and european companies choose to built cars in the UK? >It's probably import tax related, but it is possible to build decent quality >cars here cost effectively when theres less socialism involved. The U.S. mfrs know how to produce big cars with big engines - not really relevant to the Euro market. The question is: is it possible to assemble decent quality cars out of U.K. origin parts? Renault doesn't think so and has forced Nissan abroad - not sure about Honda et.al. I believe you're way off the mark by attaching past failures to a political idealogy. Has it occurred to you that many of the the upper class are bloody awful at managing people?... but they get the jobs anyway! Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? > >> Also, the fact that they can spin the motor faster allows a > >> shorter gear ratio, which puts more TORQUE at the WHEELS. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > engine with forced induction driving a higher gear ratio or from > a big ol' thumpwhacker driving a higher gear ratio is irrelevant. It's only irrelevant if you want a car that drives like sh.t unless you're flogging it everywhere. That's a workaround for a car's limitation, not an equivalent driving experience. SignatureLordy >> >> Also, the fact that they can spin the motor faster allows a >> >> shorter gear ratio, which puts more TORQUE at the WHEELS. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >It's only irrelevant if you want a car that drives like sh.t unless >you're flogging it everywhere. Cars that drive like sh.t? That would explain Honda sales over the last (pick number between 1 and 32) year(s). > >> >> Also, the fact that they can spin the motor faster allows a > >> >> shorter gear ratio, which puts more TORQUE at the WHEELS. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Cars that drive like sh.t? That would explain Honda sales over the > last (pick number between 1 and 32) year(s). IN this country, they're lower than Ford. And bar a Cosworth, i can't think of 1 single ford worth owning. People buy Honda's because they're reliable, VTEC engines are all well and good, but if you can have a 2.0 VTEC with 200bhp and 2.0 Turbo with 200, that makes as much torque but all the way from 2100rpm to 6000rpm, obviously the turbo is gonna be much nicer, less rev needing drive. Plus, the turbo offers FAR more tuning potential. SignatureDan http://www.danontherun.com > VTEC engines are all well and good, but if > you can have a 2.0 VTEC with 200bhp and 2.0 Turbo with 200, that > makes as much torque but all the way from 2100rpm to 6000rpm, > obviously the turbo is gonna be much nicer, less rev needing drive. > Plus, the turbo offers FAR more tuning potential. That's about the size of it. I fully agree that VTecs are techincally excellent engines, and if you want big-power from a small NA lump, they're the only choice. But why bother ? You can have MUCH more power from a Turbo engine instead, and it's a much nicer drive. VTec may well be plenty better than your average NA engine - but it's no match for forced induction ! >> >> >> Also, the fact that they can spin the motor faster allows a >> >> >> shorter gear ratio, which puts more TORQUE at the WHEELS. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >IN this country, they're lower than Ford. Well except for GM, all the car makers are lower than Ford (in the US). The point is that 32 years ago, no one even knew that Honda made cars. Now they sell about a third as many as Ford does and at much better profit margins. That wouldn't have happened if they drove like sh.t. > And bar a Cosworth, i can't think >of 1 single ford worth owning. Well, what car do you like? > People buy Honda's because they're reliable, No doubt, but many also buy them for the way they drive. >VTEC engines are all well and good, but if you can have a 2.0 VTEC with >200bhp and 2.0 Turbo with 200, that makes as much torque but all the way >from 2100rpm to 6000rpm, obviously the turbo is gonna be much nicer, less >rev needing drive. You might choose to rev it less, but so what? If I want to go fast I rev it. The turbos have some down side too. I don't know if turbo-lag is much of a problem these days but you have more maintenance and the real prospect of major long term problems with a turbo. As for your 2.0L example; the fact is that you have to buy the whole car, not just the turbo. There aren't really that many turbo cars available (at least in the US). Even fewer if you aren't willing to pay $40K+. Of those left, it's hard to see that they offer performance uniformly better than roughly comparable NA cars. I like the WRX. In fact I would put it in the top three choices if I were going to buy a new car right now. But how about the Turbo Beetle? With 20 more hp (and $4K more expensive) it should beat the pants off a Civic Si. But surprise, the performance of the two cars is virtually identical and the Civic gets a whopping 6 more mpg. Or compare an Audi TT to an S2000. The TT costs about $4K more, has 6% less horsepower and the S2000 just kills it in performance. (The TT does get better fuel economy.) I realize that these are not exactly comparable, but that's kind of the point. You can't buy an engine from one manufacturer and a chassis from another. What's left? Mitsubishi? Based on experiences of friends I wouldn't touch one. PT Cruiser? Saabrolet? I'd reconsider the Mitsubishi. > Plus, the turbo offers FAR more tuning potential. But 99% of buyers don't tune (i.e. modify) their engines. About half of the rest don't do it very well. > Well, what car do you like? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > maintenance and the real prospect of major long term problems with a > turbo. Don't get me wrong, i like Honda's :) I'd have a civic type R, i was just saying, i imagine a Turbo with the same power would be a much sweeter drive. Luckily i'm still young and don't mine revving ;) SignatureDan www.danontherun.com >> >> Also, the fact that they can spin the motor faster allows a >> >> shorter gear ratio, which puts more TORQUE at the WHEELS. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >you're flogging it everywhere. That's a workaround for a car's >limitation, not an equivalent driving experience. While there are many marques which sound/feel like they're being flogged at higher RPM, a properly engineered engine/drivetrain does not have to conform to that dogma. Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? > While there are many marques which sound/feel like they're being > flogged at higher RPM, a properly engineered engine/drivetrain > does not have to conform to that dogma. Sound has got nothing to do with it driving like sh.t unless it's revving at over 6,000rpm. Nice change of subject tho, smoothly done :) SignatureLordy >> While there are many marques which sound/feel like they're being >> flogged at higher RPM, a properly engineered engine/drivetrain >> does not have to conform to that dogma. > >Sound has got nothing to do with it driving like sh.t unless it's >revving at over 6,000rpm. If you're happy with your U.K car built out of pieces from wherever and mfr owned by ??? - hard to keep count really - that's fine for you. Sorry but the "world" does not seem to be following. There are cars which will rev way beyond 6Krpm without fuss - good engineering makes a difference!! >Nice change of subject tho, smoothly done :) Not really... unless you have a definition of "flogging" which is relevant. Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? > If you're happy with your U.K car built out of pieces from wherever > and mfr owned by ??? - hard to keep count really - that's fine for > you. Yep - I'm very happy with mine. > Sorry but the "world" does not seem to be following. So ? I don't give two hoots what the rest of the world is doing ! > If you're happy with your U.K car built out of pieces from wherever and mfr > owned by ??? - hard to keep count really - that's fine for you. Sorry but > the "world" does not seem to be following. There are cars which will rev > way beyond 6Krpm without fuss - good engineering makes a difference!! Yeah, he gets what is basically a Honda but with a 200bhp turbocharged British engine (and some horrible stick on "wood") for much less money than an equivelantly powered rev-happy Honda of the same age. Result! Does marque heritage really make that much difference to you? Or would your neighbours laugh at you because your car didnt cost as much as theirs or didnt have the percieved "good engineering" you require? Douglas >> If you're happy with your U.K car built out of pieces from wherever and >mfr [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Result! Point?? >Does marque heritage really make that much difference to you? Or would your >neighbours laugh at you because your car didnt cost as much as theirs or >didnt have the percieved "good engineering" you require? I buy what I like and dependability, ease of DIY, while still being pleasant to drive, counts a lot to me. I don't pay much attention to neighbors or their likes or dislikes. Honda, Toyota etc. are not perfect but their engineering is rather good.:-) Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? >>> If you're happy with your U.K car built out of pieces from wherever >>> and mfr owned by ??? - hard to keep count really - that's fine for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Point?? The point is that I'm very happy with my "U.K car built out of pieces from wherever and mfr owned by ???" for the reasons above. >> Does marque heritage really make that much difference to you? Or >> would your neighbours laugh at you because your car didnt cost as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I buy what I like and dependability, ease of DIY, while still being > pleasant to drive, counts a lot to me. Exactly the same situation here, which is exactly why I drive a Turbo car with a nice simple engine. <<snip>> >>> Result! >> >> Point?? > >The point is that I'm very happy with my "U.K car built out of pieces from >wherever and mfr owned by ???" for the reasons above. So are you a different personor are you being "cute" and posting under several aliases?... nasty habit that. >>> Does marque heritage really make that much difference to you? Or >>> would your neighbours laugh at you because your car didnt cost as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Exactly the same situation here, which is exactly why I drive a Turbo car >with a nice simple engine. We have different views of "good engineering" then. We'll see what endures. Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? > <<snip>> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So are you a different personor are you being "cute" and posting under > several aliases?... nasty habit that. Neither. I am Nom, and Douglas is Douglas. I was merely replying to your reply to his post ! >> <<snip>> >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I am Nom, and Douglas is Douglas. >I was merely replying to your reply to his post ! "Neither"? Sounds like even you are confused... a virtual person??:-) Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? > >> <<snip>> > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > "Neither"? Sounds like even you are confused... a virtual person??:-) I can confirm that Nom and I are not the same person, believe what you will, but I think if you bother to do some header snooping, you'll find this is true or that one of us works very hard to make you believe we are not the same person. One of us drives what is largely a rebadged honda and the other drives a mighty rebadged GM beast from the early 1990's. I think Nom is also a virgin. And gay. (c: Douglas >> "Neither"? Sounds like even you are confused... a virtual person??:-) > >I can confirm that Nom and I are not the same person, believe what you will, >but I think if you bother to do some header snooping, you'll find this is >true or that one of us works very hard to make you believe we are not the >same person. Oh headers are easy to come by... but if you insist I have to believe you. > One of us drives what is largely a rebadged honda and the >other drives a mighty rebadged GM beast from the early 1990's. What a strange brethern! >I think Nom is also a virgin. > >And gay. And here I was thinking he was just a "neither".:-) Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message