VTEC suck???

4-6-8 reference (it's back!)
http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/020710/11/njjp.html

Originally posted by nonovurbizniz
If you ran just the vtec lobes or more radical ones the hp would be AWFUL... EVERYWHERE... peak may be ok but it's not gunna be great at all...

So if hardwired my solenoids to I was running the vtec-high lobes all the time, my hp would be awful everywhere? How is that possible? If I ran the engine at peak hp (say, 6200 rpm or whatever) in the two configurations (stock and vtec-high-only) why wouldn't they produce identical torque?

Originally posted by nonovurbizniz My point of removing all the extra lobes/rockers is that the weight of all of that makes it harder for the car to perform...

They're awfully small.

Originally posted by nonovurbizniz vtec in ALL honda vtec engines (barring the d15) are performance minded it has NOTHING to do with fuel economy...

Wrong. It has everything to do with the tradeoff between economy, performance and other factors.

Originally posted by nonovurbizniz I'm not saying it's lame or worthless or that it wasn't a great advance in engine design... i'm saying it's WAY over hyped

Who over-hypes it? It seems like honda treats it in the list of engine features the same way any other manufacturer does.

Originally posted by nonovurbizniz vr6 or 1.8t would own a c5. ser vspec or spec v or whatever would too probobly...

Comparing a smaller engine to a 6-cylinder, a turbo and a 2.5L, that's a good argument. Know what? An LS1 would beat up on it too - ergo vtec must suck!

Originally posted by nonovurbizniz I said it's like a turbo... the point was it was like a SUPER shitty slow spooling one. [/b]

Put a turbo on your car. You'll increase power output and trash your gas mileage. Put vvt on your car. Power output increases, gas mileage doesn't decrease nearly as much. The two are completely different. vvt is not equivalent to a "shitty slow spooling" turbo.

edit for embarassing typos