Support NeoGAF

[ascii42]

Looking at the V6 Mustang. 300 horsepower should be enough for me, and 30 MPG highway should be good enough.

Of the Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger, the Mustang is the one I'd be most likely to settle for the V6, as it's the smallest. For the larger, heavier Camaro and Challenger, I'd want that V8 torque.

 

[SonnyBoy]

If you weren't a dumb-ass junior coming in here hurling completely ignorant, baseless insults, you'd have seen that I posted up my S2000 a couple of months ago in this very thread:

Nice hardtop!

 

[twinturbo2]

Of the Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger, the Mustang is the one I'd be most likely to settle for the V6, as it's the smallest. For the larger, heavier Camaro and Challenger, I'd want that V8 torque.

Yeah, that's my thinking. Lower weight + 300 horsepower = good acceleration.

 

[Gritesh]

Y'all asked if I would post some pics after I got my 2011, so here they are. Sorry they are a little late. I put a few more in the show off your car thread.

The car is so much fun.

Sooo hawt.

I put my name on the list at my local dealership last month for a 2012 WRB Hatch Sti.

I was told that I am the first person in Edmonton to have my name on the list for the 2012 so it should be exciting, it's just a long wait.


Can't wait to get it though, only like 4-5 months left... LOL

 

[AlphaSnake]

BoobsPhysics laying the smacketh down on these jabronis.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Of the Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger, the Mustang is the one I'd be most likely to settle for the V6, as it's the smallest. For the larger, heavier Camaro and Challenger, I'd want that V8 torque.

I always found the Camaro is occupying a weird space. The Challenger is large enough to be a muscle car and the Mustang is small enough to be a legitimately fast pony car, and the Camaro's in this weird place in between. Kinda the same thing looks wise; it's more interesting and less common than the Mustang, but doesn't have nearly the eye-catch appeal that the Challenger does either.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

2012 ZR1 laps the 'Ring in 7:19.63

Goddamn.

Driven by a Corvette engineer no less, (the same guy who set the 2008 record), and not Jan Magnussen. The ZR1 never ceases to impress.

 

[SePhoBroth]

If you weren't a dumb-ass junior coming in here hurling completely ignorant, baseless insults, you'd have seen that I posted up my S2000 a couple of months ago in this very thread:

How can you have that car and be that ignorant about Hondas is beyond me. Why don't you lower the V-tec point on your car and tell me how it runs.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

This should be good.

 

[reilo]

V-tec just kicked in, yo, etc etc.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

If you're moving the cross over, you're effectively playing with the torque curve. You're simply shifting it left or right and to a small extent changing its peak, depending on engine efficiency (ram charging and pressure/reflective waves, residual exhaust mostly). If you consider want a smooth transition, more overlap right? But isn't that going to reduce the peak of the power curve (and area beneath) because it's now at lower RPM?

No, because you're not reducing the lower cams' powerband, you're increasing the high cams' powerband by pushing it lower, so as long as you don't lower it below around 3800 RPM (on an S2000, at least), you'll still have good torque down low. Also, you can set it to engage via throttle % so you could be at 8k RPM and as long as you don't go past that throttle RPM, you won't transition into the high cam. Pretty nifty.

As long as proper fuel is added or subtracted for maintain healthy AFR, lowering VTEC is one of the best things you can do for a stock, mildly modded, or heavily modded VTEC engine.

How can you have that car and be that ignorant about Hondas is beyond me. Why don't you lower the V-tec point on your car and tell me how it runs.

Dude, shut the fuck up. It's obvious at this point that you're A. full of shit B. just trolling like the dumb fuck you are and C. attempting to call me ignorant yet you can't provide any proof of what you actually know and whether you even know anything about Hondas at all (probably not, you seem like the kind of dipshit that comments on Youtube videos with your half-assed knowledge that you heard from your friends/dad).

How about I just show you a Hondata FlashPro tune for 06+ AP2 S2000's? (Hopefully your stupid ass can read a dyno graph):

Program B: for high performance header, intake, and exhaust
(click for dyno plot)

- VTEC point decreased from 6000 rpm to 4200 rpm
- VTEC window from 4200 to 6000 rpm
- Rev limit 8500 rpm
- Maximum torque gain 20 ft/lbs torque at 5800 rpm
- Maximum power gain 23 hp at 5800 rpm

Program notes: developed and tested for Toda header, exhaust, and intake. Significant midrange gains. May be used with other similar performing headers however, the testing was specific with the Toda header.

Details at SoS' sales page for Flashpro Reflash: http://www.scienceofspeed.com/products/engine_performance_products/S2000/Hondata/Reflash/

Or how about this supercharged S2000 with VTEC engaging at 3800 RPM? OMG BECUZ VTEC WONT WORK AT SUCH LOW RPM, ESPECIALLY ON A SUPERCHARGED CAR RITE?

Details at Moddiction's tune results thread: http://www.s2ki.com/s2000/topic/838361-got-tuned-today-by-jeff-evans-stock-vortech/


What are you going to say now, douche? That Hondata doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about? I'm assuming you even know who Hondata is.

Seriously, go play Final Fantasy or something you pitiful little troll. My S2000 has more value in mods than your whole car is probably worth, and I've spent a lot of time and effort working on and learning about these cars so why don't you go try to troll some Honda-Tech fanboys instead of a real enthusiast before you look even more a fool than you already do.

 

[33-Hit-Combo]

No, because you're not reducing the lower cams' powerband, you're increasing the high cams' powerband by pushing it lower, so as long as you don't lower it below around 3800 RPM (on an S2000, at least), you'll still have good torque down low. Also, you can set it to engage via throttle % so you could be at 8k RPM and as long as you don't go past that throttle RPM, you won't transition into the high cam. Pretty nifty.

The graph is pretty interesting. I would have thought that by changing the crossover, you would be reducing torque in the high end from efficiency reduction and hence suffer a loss in high rpm power. Graph says otherwise. That is really interesting.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

The graph is pretty interesting. I would have thought that by changing the crossover, you would be reducing torque in the high end from efficiency reduction and hence suffer a loss in high rpm power. Graph says otherwise. That is really interesting.

No, quite the opposite: by lowering VTEC, you optimize the whole powerband, and by changing your AFR you also make more power in combination with lowering the VTEC point. Some people gain up to 30-40 whp gains in the midrange just by lowering VTEC and doing fuel tuning.

Lowering the point where the high lobe cam engages doesn't take away from the high RPM power since it isn't limited in its ability to engage at lower RPM, if that makes sense. Think of it as a balance scale between low and high lobe: weighing down the 'scale' by shifting the high lobe down to a lower engagement point gives it a larger window and lessens the low cams window, however it doesn't take away from the whole of the high cam by changing the balance.

Interesting side note: in the S2000, maximizing gains via lowering VTEC comes from removing the restriction of the stock cat converter. If you don't switch out the stock cat for a high flow cat (like mine) or a test pipe, you can't lower VTEC nearly as much so you'll lose out on the mid-range gains. Gernby over on S2KI did a lot of scientific testing on this and came to the conclusion that the stock cat is the biggest obstacle to effective VTEC tuning on the S2000.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

Nice hardtop!

Jajaja thanks man! I'm thinking about selling it though to buy a supercharger for an extra +150 whp, know what I mean?

BoobsPhysics laying the smacketh down on these jabronis.

It isn't hard laying the smackdown on a tard whose name is a pathetic play-on-words of a Final Fantasy character's name. He obviously isn't too bright.

2012 ZR1 laps the 'Ring in 7:19.63

Goddamn.

Driven by a Corvette engineer no less, (the same guy who set the 2008 record), and not Jan Magnussen. The ZR1 never ceases to impress.

Yeaaaaaaaaah, the God-car has arrived. Like I've said before: fuck the GTR, it's all about the ZR1.

I can't even imagine how bad-ass the C7 Vettes are going to be. Chevy is really tearing up the competition. Porsche and Nissan better get crackin.

 

[33-Hit-Combo]

No, quite the opposite: by lowering VTEC, you optimize the whole powerband, and by changing your AFR you also make more power in combination with lowering the VTEC point. Some people gain up to 30-40 whp gains in the midrange just by lowering VTEC and doing fuel tuning.

Lowering the point where the high lobe cam engages doesn't take away from the high RPM power since it isn't limited in its ability to engage at lower RPM, if that makes sense. Think of it as a balance scale between low and high lobe: weighing down the 'scale' by shifting the high lobe down to a lower engagement point gives it a larger window and lessens the low cams window, however it doesn't take away from the whole of the high cam by changing the balance.

Ah yes, I was being stupid with the torque shifting left/right. I don't know why I thought that as I knew it operated on two timings. So valve overlap (to an extent) is basically very applicable to a large amount of engine speeds? I suppose Honda wanted to keep the vehicle tame when required.

 

[AlphaSnake]

This is pretty rad. The torque comes in linear now all the way to 6000RPM, as opposed to spiking at the original VTEC 6000RPM placement. The area under curve is absolutely tremendous and usable now.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

Yeaaaaaaaaah, the God-car has arrived. Like I've said before: fuck the GTR, it's all about the ZR1.

I can't even imagine how bad-ass the C7 Vettes are going to be. Chevy is really tearing up the competition. Porsche and Nissan better get crackin.

Can the ZR1 uncomfortably seat 4? No.

Game over.

 

[Smokey]

Alright guys, need a little help. Not sure if I mentioned it but about a month who I bought a 08 CPO 335i convertible with 24k miles. Has premium package, navigation, and sport package. Previous owner bought an extended warranty as well so I'm covered until 2014/100K miles.

Needless to say coming from a 2008 corolla my mind is blown. A month later and I still can't get over the handling and how smooth it is to drive. Top down is also nice and catches plenty of eyes.

It's great and all...but I want more. I got a taste of greatness when I hit 100 or so without even trying the other day. I know shit about mods but I know I want a chip and aftermarket exhaust. Only chip I'm really aware of is the dinan which would give me 78 more HP.

And what about tires? Right now its on run flats, which actually came in handy as I had a nail in my back tire and had to take it up to the BMW dealer for repair. I've heard that RF aren't all that good for comfort or performance?

Sorry for such a long post. Yall know your shit so just looking for advice on what to do to unlock the beast out of this car.

 

[golem]

Look into getting a JuiceBox. Dinan is overpriced crap.

Good tires are usually expensive. I just put on some Hankook V12s and they seem pretty good so far.

From what I remember of having a 335 for a bit, I think the most work it needs is suspension.. seemed a bit floaty to me.

Here's a decent forum:

www.e90post.com/forums

 

[BoobPhysics101]

Ah yes, I was being stupid with the torque shifting left/right. I don't know why I thought that as I knew it operated on two timings. So valve overlap (to an extent) is basically very applicable to a large amount of engine speeds? I suppose Honda wanted to keep the vehicle tame when required.

Honda wanted it conservative to maintain fuel economy. Plus ,without the proper mods, lowering VTEC causes a power dip.

This is pretty rad. The torque comes in linear now all the way to 6000RPM, as opposed to spiking at the original VTEC 6000RPM placement. The area under curve is absolutely tremendous and usable now.

Yeah, it's awesome, but it becomes even more awesome when you realize that's a safe, conservative, somewhat crappy pre-made tune that doesn't come close to the power gains of a custom made tune.

Can the ZR1 uncomfortably seat 4? No.

Game over.

Two things:

If you're buying a supercar, do you really give a shit whether or not it seats 4 people? Probably not.

Also, is the GTR fun to drive and does it come in stick? No, and no.

Game over. Insert coins to continue... 10, 9, 8...

Can the ZR1 uncomfortably seat 4? No.

Game over.

Alright guys, need a little help. Not sure if I mentioned it but about a month who I bought a 08 CPO 335i convertible with 24k miles. Has premium package, navigation, and sport package. Previous owner bought an extended warranty as well so I'm covered until 2014/100K miles.

Needless to say coming from a 2008 corolla my mind is blown. A month later and I still can't get over the handling and how smooth it is to drive. Top down is also nice and catches plenty of eyes.

It's great and all...but I want more. I got a taste of greatness when I hit 100 or so without even trying the other day. I know shit about mods but I know I want a chip and aftermarket exhaust. Only chip I'm really aware of is the dinan which would give me 78 more HP.

And what about tires? Right now its on run flats, which actually came in handy as I had a nail in my back tire and had to take it up to the BMW dealer for repair. I've heard that RF aren't all that good for comfort or performance?

Sorry for such a long post. Yall know your shit so just looking for advice on what to do to unlock the beast out of this car.

Juicebox 3 (as someone said) will pick up an easy 80-100 whp.

As for tires, like golem said, Hankook Ventus V12's are awesome, as are Sumitomo HTR Z 3. Anything else (for your needs) is unecessary.

If you want better handling (yeah, the stock 335i is floaty, made for comfort) and want very high quality suspension, you have two choices: Bilstein and KW.

I'd look into PSS9/10's or KW V2's/V3's. The KW's are much more expensive (my KW V3's retail for $2300) but have a harder edge to performance, whereas the Bilsteins are more comfortable but still handle great.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

Two things:

If you're buying a supercar, do you really give a shit whether or not it seats 4 people? Probably not.

Also, is the GTR fun to drive and does it come in stick? No, and no.

Game over. Insert coins to continue... 10, 9, 8...

Did you actually think I was being serious?

That said, I would still take a GTR as my everyday supercar. I wouldn't want to row through gears in LA traffic everyday.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

Did you actually think I was being serious?

That said, I would still take a GTR as my everyday supercar. I wouldn't want to row through gears in LA traffic everyday.

I always take the 818 serious, dude. Us 951'ers gotta be careful.

Hell naw. Do you know what it's like to 'row through gears' with over 500 lb/ft torque on tap? Just leave the car in first with the clutch out and it'll crawl at like 15 mph by itself lol.

 

[AlphaSnake]

I always take the 818 serious, dude. Us 951'ers gotta be careful.

Hell naw. Do you know what it's like to 'row through gears' with over 500 lb/ft torque on tap? Just leave the car in first with the clutch out and it'll crawl at like 15 mph by itself lol.

Seriously.

I can't remember the last time I didn't crawl home from the office in my 370Z. It's not that bad - and I don't have anywhere near the torque of an LS to just use the clutch. Besides, it helps when you actually have a firmer clutch pedal...

I drove an A5 2.0T 6MT the other day, and that manual felt like total dog shit. No weight to the clutch, absolutely none whatsoever, worse than my cousin's 2001 Civic (which isn't so bad, actually). And the shifter had absolutely no precision. It's buttery and smooth, but lacks feedback and you'll often find yourself wondering "am I about to downshift into 1st, 3rd, or 5th".

I've driven a lot of manuals, especially more recently now that my daily is a 6MT and I've taken a fondness to it, and the Audi is probably one of the poorer ones. On the other hand, the Audi S4 felt quite a bit better.

 

[SePhoBroth]

it could've been at least 1-2k lower on every engine with real VTEC.

I could've showed you that dyno sheet Sherlock. This is why you make Hondas look bad. wtf is real v-tec and non real v-tec? Since you're so smart, how do you think they figure out that v-tec was best at 3800 rpms on that supercharged s2000? Funny how you want to talk about names while mine is from Final Fantasy posting on a gaming forum and yours, well what da ya know!!

 

[Enron]

I could've showed you that dyno sheet Sherlock. This is why you make Hondas look bad. wtf is real v-tec and non real v-tec? Since you're so smart, how do you think they figure out that v-tec was best at 3800 rpms on that supercharged s2000? Funny how you want to talk about names while mine is from Final Fantasy posting on a gaming forum and yours, well what da ya know!!

what the fuck did i just read

 

[BoobPhysics101]

I could've showed you that dyno sheet Sherlock. This is why you make Hondas look bad. wtf is real v-tec and non real v-tec? Since you're so smart, how do you think they figure out that v-tec was best at 3800 rpms on that supercharged s2000? Funny how you want to talk about names while mine is from Final Fantasy posting on a gaming forum and yours, well what da ya know!!

Ok, time for a Fatality to finish off this dipshit junior.

1. 3800 RPM on that supercharged S2000 was determined as the optimal crossover point by setting the VTEC high (to 8000+ RPM), then setting it low (around 1k RPM) and figuring out where the torque curves cross by overlaying the two graphs on top of each other. This is pretty basic VTEC tuning knowledge which is obviously beyond you because you don't seem to know ANYTHING about tuning Honda engines.

2. "Real" VTEC and "non-real VTEC" examples would be K20A2 and K20A3. K20A3 is from the base RSX and EP3 Si, and doesn't have real DOHC VTEC like a B16, K20A2/Z1/Z3/Z4, F20c1 or F22, J32 etc, it has a form of i-VTEC that is more akin to VTEC-E (the VTEC system featured in R18 from the current base Civics and the similar form that exists in Honda Fit engines).

VTEC E = Variable valve Timing and lift Electronic Control for Efficiency, and doesn't have a high RPM cam profile like i-VTEC from the *real* K20's or VTEC from the S2000's F20/F22.

A simple (yet probably complex to an ignorant asshat such as yourself) example can be found here: http://www.superhonda.com/forum/f93/k20a-vtec-breakdown-124797/

3. If you could've showed me that dyno sheet, why didn't you? Because it proves you wrong 100% on the effects and performance gains of lowering the VTEC crossover?

4. If anything, I make Honda owners look good because A. I'm not an ignorant neanderthal like yourself and B. I'm a real car enthusiast.

Anyways, I've thoroughly blown you out of the water at this point and it's glaringly obvious that you know absolutely nothing about Hondas or possibly even cars, plus your attempt to call me out has backfired on you in a pitiful way.

Seriously, the mods need to ban your ass because you're just a troll that's mucking up the entire thread.

 

[minx]

Do Infiniti's have the expensive maintenance like BMW and Audi? Looking at a used G35. I hear Infiniti has great reliability while not so much the same with BMW or Audi.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

Seriously.

I can't remember the last time I didn't crawl home from the office in my 370Z. It's not that bad - and I don't have anywhere near the torque of an LS to just use the clutch. Besides, it helps when you actually have a firmer clutch pedal...

I drove an A5 2.0T 6MT the other day, and that manual felt like total dog shit. No weight to the clutch, absolutely none whatsoever, worse than my cousin's 2001 Civic (which isn't so bad, actually). And the shifter had absolutely no precision. It's buttery and smooth, but lacks feedback and you'll often find yourself wondering "am I about to downshift into 1st, 3rd, or 5th".

I've driven a lot of manuals, especially more recently now that my daily is a 6MT and I've taken a fondness to it, and the Audi is probably one of the poorer ones. On the other hand, the Audi S4 felt quite a bit better.

Ah, so the A5 6 speed felt just like the GTI? Because I've driven a MKV GTI quite a few times and that's exactly how the transmission feels: completely numb and vague in what gear you're in. I bet they use the same transmission, actually, just because they use the same engine as the MKV/MKVI GTI's. Not that it really matters what gear you're in: those engines have so much torque that being in 5th or 6th @ 30 MPH isn't going to bog the engine.

Driving stick in a GTI is so easy, it's probably one of the easiest cars ever to drive stick in due to how soft the clutch is in addition to it being almost impossible to stall the car due to the low end torque.

That being said, I agree 100% with you on the fact that driving a car like that is effortlessly boring and not really fun at all.

Do Infiniti's have the expensive maintenance like BMW and Audi? Looking at a used G35. I hear Infiniti has great reliability while not so much the same with BMW or Audi.

Not really, from what I know they're far more reliable compared to the BMW's and Audi's, and since they're a Japanese import they use a lot of Nissan parts which are very reasonably priced. Nissans are pretty reliable cars, not quite Honda or Toyota level but they shouldn't give you any major headaches.

That being said, can't recommend the G35 at all, especially not when there's so many better cars out there for the money.

 

[SePhoBroth]

Ok, time for a Fatality to finish off this dipshit junior.

1. 3800 RPM on that supercharged S2000 was determined as the optimal crossover point by setting the VTEC high (to 8000+ RPM), then setting it low (around 1k RPM) and figuring out where the torque curves cross by overlaying the two graphs on top of each other. This is pretty basic VTEC tuning knowledge which is obviously beyond you because you don't seem to know ANYTHING about tuning Honda engines.

2. "Real" VTEC and "non-real VTEC" examples would be K20A2 and K20A3. K20A3 is from the base RSX and EP3 Si, and doesn't have real DOHC VTEC like a B16, K20A2/Z1/Z3/Z4, F20c1 or F22, J32 etc, it has a form of i-VTEC that is more akin to VTEC-E (the VTEC system featured in R18 from the current base Civics and the similar form that exists in Honda Fit engines).

VTEC E = Variable valve Timing and lift Electronic Control for Efficiency, and doesn't have a high RPM cam profile like i-VTEC from the *real* K20's or VTEC from the S2000's F20/F22.

A simple (yet probably complex to an ignorant asshat such as yourself) example can be found here: http://www.superhonda.com/forum/f93/k20a-vtec-breakdown-124797/

3. If you could've showed me that dyno sheet, why didn't you? Because it proves you wrong 100% on the effects and performance gains of lowering the VTEC crossover?

4. If anything, I make Honda owners look good because A. I'm not an ignorant neanderthal like yourself and B. I'm a real car enthusiast.

Anyways, I've thoroughly blown you out of the water at this point and it's glaringly obvious that you know absolutely nothing about Hondas or possibly even cars, plus your attempt to call me out has backfired on you in a pitiful way.

Seriously, the mods need to ban your ass because you're just a troll that's mucking up the entire thread.

1.You might of word it wrong but to find out but unlike you I'm not gonna attack you. You run once without v-tec till say 8000rpm and then again with v-tec crossover really low say 2000rpm then you over lay the graph.

2. I still don't get it. A v-tec motor is a v-tec motor.

3. No graph cause I just have real life experience. Lowering v-tec on say a stock b16 wont do shit but hurt performance. Say you lower it to activate at 4000rpm. From 4000rpm till 5200rpm the dyno graph was just flat then picked up again after 5200rpms.

4. What makes you think I'm not a car enthusiast? Maybe I'm a junior here cause I post on a car forum!!??

 

[BoobPhysics101]

1.You might of word it wrong but to find out but unlike you I'm not gonna attack you. You run once without v-tec till say 8000rpm and then again with v-tec crossover really low say 2000rpm then you over lay the graph.

2. I still don't get it. A v-tec motor is a v-tec motor.

3. No graph cause I just have real life experience. Lowering v-tec on say a stock b16 wont do shit but hurt performance. Say you lower it to activate at 4000rpm. From 4000rpm till 5200rpm the dyno graph was just flat then picked up again after 5200rpms.

4. What makes you think I'm not a car enthusiast? Maybe I'm a junior here cause I post on a car forum!!??

Congratulations, you just repeated exactly what I said but in idiot-speak. And no, you don't run it without VTEC at high RPM, that's pointless. You need to be able to compare the results of having the high cam at low RPM vs high RPM to figure out the optimal crossover.

That's like saying a car is a car... not all cars are made equally, just as not all implementations of VTEC are not equal.

I highly doubt you have real life experience because you sound like you're full of shit and your arguments are incredibly flawed. If you do have real life experience, obviously you don't know what the hell you're doing. Lowering VTEC a few hundred RPM on a stock B16 won't hurt performance if the AFR is tuned correctly, and lowering VTEC 1-2k RPM on a modded B16 will only help performance. You sound like the typical Honda-Tech tard that has a very poor understanding of tuning mechanics yet thinks he has a competent grasp on it. You're foolish enough to argue against proven methods of increasing performance through lowering VTEC, so how much can you know?

From everything I've seen of you, I can't begin to believe you're a car enthusiast with the astounding amount of ignorance you've displayed in this thread. Go back to Honda-Tech before you try to flame a hardcore S2000 owner about concepts you can barely parse out. You're embarrassing.

 

[SePhoBroth]

Congratulations, you just repeated exactly what I said but in idiot-speak. And no, you don't run it without VTEC at high RPM, that's pointless. You need to be able to compare the results of having the high cam at low RPM vs high RPM to figure out the optimal crossover.

That's like saying a car is a car... not all cars are made equally, just as not all implementations of VTEC are not equal.

I highly doubt you have real life experience because you sound like you're full of shit and your arguments are incredibly flawed. If you do have real life experience, obviously you don't know what the hell you're doing. Lowering VTEC a few hundred RPM on a stock B16 won't hurt performance if the AFR is tuned correctly, and lowering VTEC 1-2k RPM on a modded B16 will only help performance. You sound like the typical Honda-Tech tard that has a very poor understanding of tuning mechanics yet thinks he has a competent grasp on it. You're foolish enough to argue against proven methods of increasing performance through lowering VTEC, so how much can you know?

From everything I've seen of you, I can't begin to believe you're a car enthusiast with the astounding amount of ignorance you've displayed in this thread. Go back to Honda-Tech before you try to flame a hardcore S2000 owner about concepts you can barely parse out. You're embarrassing.

afr, is that all you think there is to tuning? We played with the timing and afr on that b16 on the dyno. It didn't make shit with vtec lowered at all period. Do you know how to read a timing Map?

you're so clueless. Let me ask you this. How do you get the results for this and I"m quoting you "You need to be able to compare the results of having the high cam at low RPM vs high RPM to figure out the optimal crossover?"

Speaking of honda-tech, did they clown on your knowledge? Is that why your bashing it? lol

 

[BoobPhysics101]

afr, is that all you think there is to tuning? We played with the timing and afr on that b16 on the dyno. It didn't make shit with vtec lowered at all period. Do you know how to read a timing Map?

you're so clueless. Let me ask you this. How do you get the results for this and I"m quoting you "You need to be able to compare the results of having the high cam at low RPM vs high RPM to figure out the optimal crossover?"

Speaking of honda-tech, did they clown on your knowledge? Is that why your bashing it? lol

I know how to read a timing map, but not all timing changes are beneficial or even worth doing. AFR produces larger gains than timing changes and is much more important overall when focusing on making a good tune. Some people get way too happy with aggressive timing and it's an easy way to grenade your engine.

That's nice, you obviously weren't doing it right considering you couldn't pull results out of a stock B16. Anyone tuning a stock B16 though and expecting huge gains isn't very bright though, imo. Oh yeah, if I remember correctly, B16 changes its VTEC engagement window dynamically based on several variables like load, speed etc with the window ranging from 4800-5200. Might explain some of your difficulties, among other things.

My bad, I meant to say that you need to overlay the low and high speed cams through low and high VTEC engagement to get your optimal crossover point. That's what works on K and F series.

No, I don't post at Honda-Tech except to sell parts, and most people that are familiar with Honda-Tech know how ignorant most of the community is. You're a perfect example.

 

[SePhoBroth]

AFR produces larger gains than timing changes and is much more important overall when focusing on making a good tune.

This just prove to anybody that relatively knows how to tune cars that you have no clue. I gave you way more credit then this. I would bet my life you don't know how to read a timing map just base on this comment alone. Post that comment on a car forum and see how they react. I can't be talking or debating to somebody who's this clueless.

Nice hard top and for the money, a turbo is a lot better then supercharger but hey your money. Good luck on your car.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

This just prove to anybody that relatively knows how to tune cars that you have no clue. I gave you way more credit then this. I would bet my life you don't know how to read a timing map just base on this comment alone. Post that comment on a car forum and see how they react. I can't be talking or debating to somebody who's this clueless.

Nice hard top and for the money, a turbo is a lot better then supercharger but hey your money. Good luck on your car.

Yeah, sorry, you're full of shit once again. While timing is important, it's not more important than AFR. Not all tunes need aggressive or heavily modified timing, as Mase found out when he blew a couple of S2000 engines due to overly aggressive timing that didn't produce huge gains vs more conservative timing. To question my credibility and knowledge because I'm not advocating aggressive timing and push AFR as the more important of the two is silly, to say the least. I'd prefer more conservative timing advance with a smooth AFR than timing that pushes the engine to its limits. Hell, on some tunes you can make more power with more retarded timing since it allows you to lower your VTEC window further vs. aggressive timing.

I can read a timing map just fine, thanks. And I'm touched by your lame attempt at condescension, you shouldn't bother pretending like you can give anyone credit when you have no credibility to speak of.It's hilarious that you're attempting to call me out when you've done nothing but show yourself to be 'clueless.'

And more ignorance: turbo's aren't better than superchargers on every car, especially not an S2000 where the supercharger accentuates the car's high RPM power and is far more reliable than a turbo, not to mention it puts a lot less stress on the S2000's somewhat delicate drivetrain. Also, supercharging is far preferred for tracking: the majority of turbo setups change the powerband to be less than ideal for the track, whereas a supercharger doesn't create an unwieldy powerband for track purposes.

But hey, you've already made enough ignorant and laughable statements that it couldn't hurt to make a few more. I've proven you wrong enough that at this point you're just digging the hole deeper for yourself.

 

[AlphaSnake]

Supercharging is definitely more ideal for track use: linear powerband, with no spikes all the way to redline, should keep a car planted and predictable through corners .

AFR is definitely more important than timing, and poses larger advantages over aggressive timing which is more likely to leave your car knocking, especially if gasoline is even the slightest bit shitty in your area. Timing is usually best kept within factory settings, unless you have specific maps catered to make use of aggressive timing with higher octane fuel (for track use only). Otherwise, timing changes to a daily car are absolutely pointless and pretty harmful. Furthermore, timing tuning on a motor with stock internals is absolutely moronic.

You can tune AFR on a stock car and gain anywhere between 10-30WHP - depending on a car. You can play around with timing on a stock car and hardly find 5WHP doing something aggressive and wasting a lot of time.

 

[Smokey]

My mind is blown at the jargon Boob and Seph are throwing around. Sounds so foreign to me.

 

[J-Rzez]

Cars are more tuner unfriendly at the same time now. I mean look at when you put intakes on some cars you need to flash asap or it can fuck your motor so fast. Flashes from car to car can make a dramatic difference though. Especially on Turbo cars.

For the S2K I'd go supercharger. A car like that linear power is better. Now, there are many turbo kits out there these days that are perfectly fine for track use. My car's set at 1.5bar, boost/power starts at 3200-3500, and when I'm tracking I never fall off boost. Then again, I'm not using a huge dyno-queen turbo. Cams actually make a nice difference for tracking for me, made a little more power low and spool faster. But look at FP turbos for example. Based on tune, cam, and flash, they're perfect for track use. The old rule of thumb was SC for lower boost and power, Turbo for the big numbers. But while that kinda holds water yet, it's not really the same anymore.

 

[SePhoBroth]

Supercharging is definitely more ideal for track use: linear powerband, with no spikes all the way to redline, should keep a car planted and predictable through corners .

AFR is definitely more important than timing, and poses larger advantages over aggressive timing which is more likely to leave your car knocking, especially if gasoline is even the slightest bit shitty in your area. Timing is usually best kept within factory settings, unless you have specific maps catered to make use of aggressive timing with higher octane fuel (for track use only). Otherwise, timing changes to a daily car are absolutely pointless and pretty harmful. Furthermore, timing tuning on a motor with stock internals is absolutely moronic.

You can tune AFR on a stock car and gain anywhere between 10-30WHP - depending on a car. You can play around with timing on a stock car and hardly find 5WHP doing something aggressive and wasting a lot of time.

Alpha, you seem like a cool guy and don't take me the wrong way but timing is way more important. When tuning afr all your doing is adding or subtracting fuel. To actually make power you have to tune the timing. With that said they go hand in hand. Power comes from timing not afr. You add timing till it starts to detonate (like you said depends on gas and from where I'm from BP has the best gas) or stop making power then pull back couple of degrees (to be safe) while you must make sure you're not running lean. There's a lot more to it but that's the basic of it. I'm not very good at explaining things but I gave it a try.

I have a stock honda that's turbocharged and I made 299 to the wheels. Been my beater for a couple years now. So tuning on a stock internal motor is not stupid if it's been modded.

As for turbo vs supercharger, it's been beaten to death so I'm not gonna start but just check to see what the majority of drivers use be it drag, road, any kind of car racing.

 

[SePhoBroth]

My mind is blown at the jargon Boob and Seph are throwing around. Sounds so foreign to me.

Sorry, it got a little technical.

 

[soundahfekz]

This just prove to anybody that relatively knows how to tune cars that you have no clue. I gave you way more credit then this. I would bet my life you don't know how to read a timing map just base on this comment alone. Post that comment on a car forum and see how they react. I can't be talking or debating to somebody who's this clueless.

Nice hard top and for the money, a turbo is a lot better then supercharger but hey your money. Good luck on your car.

On an S2K? Nah.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

Supercharging is definitely more ideal for track use: linear powerband, with no spikes all the way to redline, should keep a car planted and predictable through corners .

AFR is definitely more important than timing, and poses larger advantages over aggressive timing which is more likely to leave your car knocking, especially if gasoline is even the slightest bit shitty in your area. Timing is usually best kept within factory settings, unless you have specific maps catered to make use of aggressive timing with higher octane fuel (for track use only). Otherwise, timing changes to a daily car are absolutely pointless and pretty harmful. Furthermore, timing tuning on a motor with stock internals is absolutely moronic.

You can tune AFR on a stock car and gain anywhere between 10-30WHP - depending on a car. You can play around with timing on a stock car and hardly find 5WHP doing something aggressive and wasting a lot of time.

Don't speak logic like that, or else you'll be considered 'clueless.'

Alpha, you seem like a cool guy and don't take me the wrong way but timing is way more important. When tuning afr all your doing is adding or subtracting fuel. To actually make power you have to tune the timing. With that said they go hand in hand. Power comes from timing not afr. You add timing till it starts to detonate (like you said depends on gas and from where I'm from BP has the best gas) or stop making power then pull back couple of degrees (to be safe) while you must make sure you're not running lean. There's a lot more to it but that's the basic of it. I'm not very good at explaining things but I gave it a try.

I have a stock honda that's turbocharged and I made 299 to the wheels. Been my beater for a couple years now. So tuning on a stock internal motor is not stupid if it's been modded.

As for turbo vs supercharger, it's been beaten to death so I'm not gonna start but just check to see what the majority of drivers use be it drag, road, any kind of car racing.

And this is how you know you're full of crap. What do you think adding or subtracting fuel does? What do you think the AFR is all about? Pretty lines and proper ratios? God damn. The whole point of AFR tuning is to create the proper fuel mix for optimal power. I guarantee you that you'll make far more power tuning just AFR without touching timing than you would just tuning timing without touching AFR. This shows in the fact that you can lower VTEC and make better power in the midrange by retarding timing vs. having higher VTEC engagement and aggressive timing.

A "stock Honda" that's "turbocharged" isn't "stock" anymore, FYI. It's funny that you can't even mention what 'Honda' it is.

The majority of drivers? What the hell does that useless generalization even mean? The majority of drivers of what? Camaros? Vettes? Lotus Elises? Hondas? Different engines require different aspiration for different purposes, period.

The Lotus Elise is supercharged. The MK IV Supra is turbocharged. The NSX is NA. The Corvette is NA. Evo is turbo, STI is turbo. ZR1 is supercharged. Do you get the gist? Different engines work better with turbo or superchargers, or not at all. Your horribly inept generalization doesn't prove anything.

P.S. The majority of road course raced S2000's are NA, and any forced induction ones are supercharged with the minority being turbo. Drag S2000's work well with either super or turbo depending on the power goals.

 

[SePhoBroth]

Don't speak logic like that, or else you'll be considered 'clueless.'



And this is how you know you're full of crap. What do you think adding or subtracting fuel does? What do you think the AFR is all about? Pretty lines and proper ratios? God damn. The whole point of AFR tuning is to create the proper fuel mix for optimal power. I guarantee you that you'll make far more power tuning just AFR without touching timing than you would just tuning timing without touching AFR. This shows in the fact that you can lower VTEC and make better power in the midrange by retarding timing vs. having higher VTEC engagement and aggressive timing.

A "stock Honda" that's "turbocharged" isn't "stock" anymore, FYI. It's funny that you can't even mention what 'Honda' it is.

The majority of drivers? What the hell does that useless generalization even mean? The majority of drivers of what? Camaros? Vettes? Lotus Elises? Hondas? Different engines require different aspiration for different purposes, period.

The Lotus Elise is supercharged. The MK IV Supra is turbocharged. The NSX is NA. The Corvette is NA. Evo is turbo, STI is turbo. ZR1 is supercharged. Do you get the gist? Different engines work better with turbo or superchargers, or not at all. Your horribly inept generalization doesn't prove anything.

P.S. The majority of road course raced S2000's are NA, and any forced induction ones are supercharged with the minority being turbo. Drag S2000's work well with either super or turbo depending on the power goals.

B18b with stock internals if you want to Know. Go to your favorite car site and ask them the basics of how tuning works.

 

[minx]

Not really, from what I know they're far more reliable compared to the BMW's and Audi's, and since they're a Japanese import they use a lot of Nissan parts which are very reasonably priced. Nissans are pretty reliable cars, not quite Honda or Toyota level but they shouldn't give you any major headaches.

That being said, can't recommend the G35 at all, especially not when there's so many better cars out there for the money.

What cars would you recommend instead that are reliable, sporty, and kind of fuel efficient.

 

[AlmostMilk]

What cars would you recommend instead that are reliable, sporty, and kind of fuel efficient.

Volkswagen Jetta. Gets up and goes quick with 55 mpg. Its a diesel though. But the selling price is pretty cheap for what your getting. I at least recommend a test drive.

 

[Vicetrailia]

My friend decreased the rpm for kickin on his vtec from 7k to 5k and was very happy with the results. He had an 07 stock tsx and didn' shell out a lot of money.

Minx get an 08 to 04 acura tsx. Good gas (4cyl), full luxury, nice speed, great handling, great looks, very reliable.

09 to 11 tsx don't feel as sporty. Look at new mazda 3 or six.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

B18b with stock internals if you want to Know. Go to your favorite car site and ask them the basics of how tuning works.

Um, that didnt't answer anything. I didn't ask what engine, I asked what Honda you have, as in chassis.

I already know how tuning works, thanks, as i've demonstrated above. Considering your ridiculous belief that timing is more important than AFR, I suggest you take your own advice and read up on how to make actual power. 299 at the wheels on a turbo b18 is pitiful, i have friends making more power on stock internal d16's probably pushing less boost.

But you're probably bullshitting about that as i haven't seen any dynographs or pics of a build.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

What cars would you recommend instead that are reliable, sporty, and kind of fuel efficient.

Like the poster above me said, tsx is awesome. Acura TL is awesome too, faster than a g35 and the build quality is so much better.

 

[Enron]

Like the poster above me said, tsx is awesome. Acura TL is awesome too, faster than a g35 and the build quality is so much better.

4 months ago I had narrowed my choices down to a TL or a g35 and went with the g35. The g35 interior looks bland and isn't exactly made of the best of materials, but every TL I drove was a rattletrap, despite the supposedly superior construction of the interior. That being said, the G has its share of rattles too, though. The TL in its Type-S config might be faster than a g35, but the g35 is a livelier car and more fun to drive.

Look at new mazda 3 or six.

Are 6s better now? I had looked at these during my search but everything I read said to stay far away. The two people i knew that had experience with a mazda 6 also said the same.

 

[SePhoBroth]

Um, that didnt't answer anything. I didn't ask what engine, I asked what Honda you have, as in chassis.

I already know how tuning works, thanks, as i've demonstrated above. Considering your ridiculous belief that timing is more important than AFR, I suggest you take your own advice and read up on how to make actual power. 299 at the wheels on a turbo b18 is pitiful, i have friends making more power on stock internal d16's probably pushing less boost.

But you're probably bullshitting about that as i haven't seen any dynographs or pics of a build.

This is why I think you are stupid. It's so funny, I might just post this on H-t. lol This is exactly why I say you are clueless about Hondas in the first place. smh. You would be laughed at religiously at any competent car forum saying that. I guess that's why you're posting here acting like you actually know what you're talking about. lol Only thing you demonstrated is that you're liar, you don't know how to read timing maps and it's a shame for you to call yourself a real car enthusiast.

 

[duckroll]

Okay, look. I think you both need to chill and maybe take this to PM or something. I don't know jack shit about the technical stuff you guys are arguing about, but I do know that it's getting really heated and you're both not doing yourselves any favors by adding insults and shit each time you reply. Other members of this thread are getting annoyed because it's pretty pointless now.

I'll appreciate if you guys take it to PM, or agree to disagree, or if you feel that it's a educational and worthwhile topic to debate on, at least flesh out your points in more detail so other people can understand it and participate. Also cut down on the name calling and stuff. You're not kids, and we're not in a bar here. Thanks.