American muscle or Honda?

[Paul RS]

Originally Posted by NineK

Toyota, perhaps have done so with the NZR-halfthealphabet 1.6 engine, but its not the worlds most reliable engine. Ford and Vauxhall wont produce them, not due to lack of technology but down to the fact their engine design and build just isnt up to scratch. As ford required a turbo to produce 130hp from the RST, Honda were producing 150+ from the B16 in the CRX and it handled infinitely better. Before you begin in a responding arguement make sure it is relative

My post was about hondas and muscle cars, in keeping with the thread.

Your post is about toyotas, vauxhalls and fords - Who's post is relevant now?

Gotta love self pwnage.

In response to the off topic rs turbo vs crx comment. - The RS handles better standard. Having driven both i'm qualified to say that.

Honda have never made a properly fast car, all the other manufactures you mentioned have. All of them seem to have masterd the art of turbo charging, unlike honda.

[Gaz]

Always would have been Hondas only for me, but I drove a V8 Mustang to Spain recently and was hugely impressed. LHD or not, it's a car I would actually love to own, especially in Shelby or GT500 guise.

In saying that - they're very different. You can't really compare big American muscle to Jap hot hatches and coupes, totally different markets and designed with totally different aims in mind. I appreciate them both for what they are.

[Drift_Nut]

Originally Posted by 56oval

not really, the stang cost upwards of 60k to build (labour of love) my mate picked it up for 25k a good few years back.
with cars like that value for money doesnt even come into the equation, same as throwing that kind of money at an evo/scooby or even a honda.
its not about the money, its about the whole experience, the stripping of the car, the nights in the garage, the immense headaches, the sleepless nights, the joy of resolving problems and finally getting it out paint and screwing it back together, the final roll out of workshop and hitting the loud pedal.

well in my opinion if you really love cars and you want your own car to b special to you u should spend as much time in the garage as possible with it and get to know every square inch of the thing and it your going to turbo her or do something else with the engine you should do it your self and not just throw her to a mechanic thats how i was tought

[cor5a_kid]

Originally Posted by Drift_Nut

nah man im dale . . . im mates wiv dee mc convilles wee bro dez . . . . . . i knw wheaten nal even if e is a homo

ah right. don't think i know you.

Originally Posted by Drift_Nut

i knw wheaten nal even if e is a homo

What does this bit mean? lol

Originally Posted by DezzY-LawD

Hows it coming on??

Did you see the drawing I did on the thread about needing pics of cars?

Not the best but atleast i tried

i did. cheers lad. how you getting on with the art?

[Lyons]

No photos of your Mustang road trip Gaz?

[Curt]

I dont understand what youre looking for.

Are you trying to buy one or the other? Or are you asking people which they'd prefer to own?
There simply is no comparison between American Muscle and Honda's, they are in a different league altogether

[56oval]

Originally Posted by Drift_Nut

well in my opinion if you really love cars and you want your own car to b special to you u should spend as much time in the garage as possible with it and get to know every square inch of the thing and it your going to turbo her or do something else with the engine you should do it your self and not just throw her to a mechanic thats how i was tought

and on that bombshell....

that my friend is what it is ALL about

[Gaz]

Originally Posted by Paul RS

Honda have never made a properly fast car, all the other manufactures you mentioned have. All of them seem to have masterd the art of turbo charging, unlike honda.

I would agree that the bread and butter Hondas like Vti's, DC2's and S2ks are not 'fast' cars in bigger scheme of things, but look at any stats for the NSX Type R and you'll see it was a quick and impressive car by any standard.

Honda have deliberately shied away from turbocharging as they always felt turbo lag and lack of response sullied the driving feel of a car, they have gone on record about this many times. If anything, they were trying to approach the design of their engines with driver involvement in mind - which is surely something they should be applauded for as many manufacturers simply only have profit as their motivation. However, turbocharger technology has moved on a great deal and I would agree that modern day Honda needs to go down this route to stay relevant.

[DezzY-LawD]

Originally Posted by cor5a_kid

i did. cheers lad. how you getting on with the art?

Not too bad..Getting through it

Should be starting an engine bay tomorrow.

Fingers crossed it all comes out well. Will get some pics on when its done

[Drift_Nut]

Originally Posted by cor5a_kid

ah right. don't think i know you.

nope you dont.. myself just like dezzy im only 15 but even at that after xmas im hopefullg getting a 1994 merc c180 to work on so that should be fun

[Drift_Nut]

Originally Posted by Curt

I dont understand what youre looking for.

Are you trying to buy one or the other? Or are you asking people which they'd prefer to own?
There simply is no comparison between American Muscle and Honda's, they are in a different league altogether

yes i know they are in different leagues i just started this thread to get other peoples opinions about which they prefer

[Gaz]

Originally Posted by Lyons

No photos of your Mustang road trip Gaz?

I've a fair few but I'll save them for another thread. Here's a shot of the big unit itself at one of numerous petrol stops high in the spanish mountains, I'm a convert now!

[cor5a_kid]

Originally Posted by Drift_Nut

well in my opinion if you really love cars and you want your own car to b special to you u should spend as much time in the garage as possible with it and get to know every square inch of the thing and it your going to turbo her or do something else with the engine you should do it your self and not just throw her to a mechanic thats how i was tought

get a look at my build thread from start to it is now. lol

[Paul RS]

Originally Posted by Gaz

I would agree that the bread and butter Hondas like Vti's, DC2's and S2ks are not 'fast' cars in bigger scheme of things, but look at any stats for the NSX Type R and you'll see it was a quick and impressive car by any standard.

Honda have deliberately shied away from turbocharging as they always felt turbo lag and lack of response sullied the driving feel of a car, they have gone on record about this many times. If anything, they were trying to approach the design of their engines with driver involvement in mind - which is surely something they should be applauded for as many manufacturers simply only have profit as their motivation. However, turbocharger technology has moved on a great deal and I would agree that modern day Honda needs to go down this route to stay relevant.

Instead of turbo lag they have vtec 'lag' though?

I just can't get on with the vtak at all, driven a few and genuinely the only one i've ever really like was Mark Francis's crx. It felt fast, anything else, teg type r's etc felt slow

I've never been in an s2000 to know what they are like though..

[Drift_Nut]

gaz lol shes tidy what was she like to drive response wize if you know what i mean

but i still prefer the clasics such as the mustang boss, 1969 mustang , 67 shelby gt-500 ect

[56oval]

theres some good arguments on here.

there are always people/companies etc that will bang the drum for their product/design and see it through till its pretty much as good as it can be, even if the eyes of the world dont see it.
i think honda got the balance right, a screeming banshee of an engine which is reliable and that has character and enough poke for the chassis it was going in ( im referring to the "r" badged stuff)

mazda kept on with the rotary
and the americans still manage to squeeze 150bhp out of a v8.

although a blown hemi rules over a v-tec all day long

[NineK]

Originally Posted by Paul RS

Plus why the one sided poll? Why not jap vs muscle? Why just honda?

Honda - You only think they are fast until you get a drive in a proper fast car. If any other manufacture made a car that revved to 8500, it'd have a lot more bhp and more torque - Vtak sucks.

Originally Posted by Paul RS

My post was about hondas and muscle cars, in keeping with the thread.

Your post is about toyotas, vauxhalls and fords - Who's post is relevant now?

Gotta love self pwnage.

In response to the off topic rs turbo vs crx comment. - The RS handles better standard. Having driven both i'm qualified to say that.

Honda have never made a properly fast car, all the other manufactures you mentioned have. All of them seem to have masterd the art of turbo charging, unlike honda.

Having owned both, I am also qualified to say that in my opinion the RS was infact even more of a deathtrap than the crx as standard.

And as mentioned above, Honda have infact produced "fast" cars!

So yes, i do infact like self pwnage

[NineK]

Originally Posted by Paul RS

Instead of turbo lag they have vtec 'lag' though?

I just can't get on with the vtak at all, driven a few and genuinely the only one i've ever really like was Mark Francis's crx. It felt fast, anything else, teg type r's etc felt slow

I've never been in an s2000 to know what they are like though..

it isnt lag though

Turbo lag is brought about naturally due to the nature of the system, much in the same way a compressor has to fill its tank before being ultimately useable.

VTEC has its change over point to allow for normal daily driving - and as such, wouldnt be classed as lag. It would however fall into the variable valve timing category which noone else carried through back in the day. Nowadays it is everywhere, and even the Hondas have settled back into an almost no existant changeover and as such does not have the same attraction to those who enjoy the "wee" kick from it.

I am by no means trying to argue, merely put the point across that yes Hondas are great, but they are far from the be-all and end-all. Like everything they have their downsides, but as a daily driving semi-performance car i think they are absolutely spot on.

And Marks CRX does feel very very quick, i absolutely LOVE it.

[Drift_Nut]

@Cor5a_kid . .. . had a wee look at the polo thread .. she's tidy man i never notice the leather on the roof i thought she was all matt green and on the 4th or 5th page of it theres a fella that says about an army theme in my opinion that would make the car amazing to drive and to look at . . . . . ive seen you about lurgan and the car's tidy but i still prefer theeeee .. White Skyline grt ( i think thts wat it is lol ) sorry lol

[Paul RS]

Originally Posted by NineK

Having owned both, I am also qualified to say that in my opinion the RS was infact even more of a deathtrap than the crx as standard.

Thats not possible, plus i'm talking about good condition cars, not scrappers.

Originally Posted by NineK

And as mentioned above, Honda have infact produced "fast" cars!

ONE type of the NSX? Thats more super car price range than your average civic lol. Up in that price bracket, its probably one of the least desirable cars to own.

[NineK]

Originally Posted by Paul RS

Thats not possible, plus i'm talking about good condition cars, not scrappers.



ONE type of the NSX? Thats more super car price range than your average civic lol. Up in that price bracket, its probably one of the least desirable cars to own.

I was not referrng to scrappers dude, both were and still are good condition cars.

I do agree though about the NSX,

We could banter this back and forth all night long, but at the end of the day it is definitely down to personal preference.

You obviously love those bundles of scrap and i love my kit kat wrapper ons wheels.

So yes, i would take a 67 Mustang over a DC2 any day of the week but i wouldnt go back near any other ford

[56oval]

i love a bit of blown detroit iron in an old english manor house.

[Mark_C]

Originally Posted by DezzY-LawD

Honda

Simply because they are more reliable and in my opinion look much better.

Also would be the price..You would pick up a Honda cheaper than most american cars.

They may have bigger engines but japs handling would be better

Just my opinion but I suppose that there will always be a disagreement

More reliable? LOL

A big, under stressed engine, with simple timing and fuel systems versus a highly strung 4 cylinder with electronics everywhere?

[Gaz]

Originally Posted by Paul RS

Instead of turbo lag they have vtec 'lag' though?

I just can't get on with the vtak at all, driven a few and genuinely the only one i've ever really like was Mark Francis's crx. It felt fast, anything else, teg type r's etc felt slow

I've never been in an s2000 to know what they are like though..

It all depends on your take on things. Honda wanted to build an engine that was docile and economical at low revs (thus easy to drive round town, etc) but also with a high power output and a high revving nature; in short, they wanted an engine with two personalities. And that's exactly what they came up with. Bear in mind, vtec was designed in the mid-late 80s, and turbo technology back then was nowhere near as advanced or impressive as it is now - it just wasn't a viable option for Honda. As much as you love Fords, even you have to admit that earlier ones like the RS Turbo and the big turbo Escort Cossie were known as much for their turbo lag as anything else - Honda wanted to avoid this and retain as much responsiveness as possible.

Now, some people see this dual nature system for what it is - the best of both worlds (vtec lovers like myself), others see it as devoid of torque and liken it to 'lag'. It all depends on your perspective really. Vtec engines do seem to suffer from a lack of torque, but that's only if you spend most of your time above 5000rpm and miss the shove in the back when you drop below it. Driven normally, I don't find them any worse than equivalent 1.6, 1.8, 2.0 from other brands

The problem with vtecs is that they always aim above their weight and this is where the torque problem reared it's head. When I had my first Civic Vti I remember having a go against a 2.0 16v red top Cavalier one night, I pulled about a car length on him which wasn't bad for my lowly 1.6. I knew the guy, and drove his car a few nights later - felt much more torquey than mine. Was it faster though? No.

But anyway .... I digress. It really is horses for courses, I just like all variety of engines (asides from French crap , cue 106lad)

[Mark_C]

Fiat AND GM had variable valve timing 30 years before Honda. Granted it was probably ****e.

Wasnt vtec a development of Honda bike tech?

[Gaz]

Originally Posted by Mark_C

More reliable? LOL

A big, under stressed engine, with simple timing and fuel systems versus a highly strung 4 cylinder with electronics everywhere?

Statistics pretty much speak for themselves though.

[NineK]

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/v8-civic_142556.htm

perfect

[Drift_Nut]

now thats a tidy rolls . . . . i love the whole look i take my hat off to the person trying to turn an english car into a muscle but its not for me

[Gaz]

Originally Posted by Drift_Nut

gaz lol shes tidy what was she like to drive response wize if you know what i mean

but i still prefer the clasics such as the mustang boss, 1969 mustang , 67 shelby gt-500 ect

Quite responsive, and quicker than I expected taking into account the weight of the car. Was around 300bhp or thereabouts. Probably one of the best sounding V8s I've heard, I've driven a few others from German brands but none had the same kind of snort as this. Loved it

[56oval]

Originally Posted by Drift_Nut

now thats a tidy rolls . . . . i love the whole look i take my hat off to the person trying to turn an english car into a muscle but its not for me

sorry lol, its off topic, im gonna go and get my own thread lol.