Car Forums  

Go Back   Car Forums > Vehicle Specific > European Imports
FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-12-2004, 10:52 PM   #16
thunderbird1100
CF dB-o-holic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LSU Campus
Posts: 3,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
*sigh* so opinionated for such a young person...

The VR6 is special because it's a V6 that BOLTS into the place of a 4 cyl in the VW. While the HP figures are "nothing special" to you, the overall torque curve, flexibility, and driveability certainly should be. Remember, hp is only a derived number, it's torque that does the work. the 200 hp VR6 has 195 lb ft of torque at a very daily driveable 3200 rpm. The TSX you mention has 200 hp, but only 166 lb ft of torque, and it comes in over a thousand rpm higher! Yes, the Accord has 240 hp and 212 lb ft of torque (but that torque is at 5500 rpm! Not much in the way of low end, daily driver ability!), but it does it from more displacement, and a physically much larger and heavier engine (again, the point of the VR6 is to get nearly 3 liters of V6 ability in the space normally reserved for a 4 cyl engine).

Sorry that you can't really figure that out.

The VR-6 sacrifices power for 'mid-range'...not anything I care about in my book if you're going to make barely ANY power up high. You are basically talking to a wall in that statement and it shows that you dont know much about Hondas to begin with. The driveability of a J30 Accord is probably easier than a VR-6 Jetta or Golf. I've driven it several times and could easily pull from 60mph in 6th gear. The whole ideology behind i-Vtec (the system imposed upon the K24 in the TSX) is for strictly low-midrange torque and having a flatter torque curve. OF COURSE it's going to have less torque and come at a higher rpm..it's a SMALLER engine... 2.4L four compared to a 2.8L six. Common Sense should kick in there and tell you, well, I guess it has more torque because it has MORE DISPLACEMENT AND TWO MORE CYLINDERS. But, I guess that just doesn't seem to knock in sometimes. Call me crazy, but that's what it tells me
__________________
1990 Honda Accord LX Sedan
Mileage Ticker: 232,400 Miles
Stereo Mods: Coming soon...

~Blow your mind~

thunderbird1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2004, 12:09 PM   #17
heebee
CF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bedfordshire, UK
Posts: 113
Quote:
Common Sense should kick in there and tell you, well, I guess it has more torque because it has MORE DISPLACEMENT AND TWO MORE CYLINDERS. But, I guess that just doesn't seem to knock in sometimes. Call me crazy, but that's what it tells me

Didn't you start by arguing that Honda engines were better? Do you not see the link between torque and real-world performance?
heebee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2004, 09:49 PM   #18
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
The VR-6 sacrifices power for 'mid-range'...not anything I care about in my book if you're going to make barely ANY power up high.

And yo0ur book is how old? And you have how much experience?


Quote:
You are basically talking to a wall in that statement

Oh, don't I know it. Yo've proven that you have formed concrete and ironclad opinions on everything without having much, if any, actual experience. A wall that says, "gee, at 17 years old, I already know everything and refuse to learn."


Quote:
and it shows that you dont know much about Hondas to begin with.

No, I've only been dealing with race versions for a couple decades.

Quote:
The driveability of a J30 Accord is probably easier than a VR-6 Jetta or Golf.

probably? Probably? Love teh way you throw around terms to cover up the fact that all you are is a magazine racer.

Quote:
OF COURSE it's going to have less torque and come at a higher rpm..it's a SMALLER engine... 2.4L four compared to a 2.8L six. Common Sense should kick in there and tell you, well, I guess it has more torque because it has MORE DISPLACEMENT AND TWO MORE CYLINDERS. But, I guess that just doesn't seem to knock in sometimes. Call me crazy, but that's what it tells me

Common sense would then tell you that the ability to put two more cylinders and extra displacement in the space that only 4 cyls occupied would MAKE it the reason for it being special. Call me crazy, but that's what it tells me... It doesn't seem to knock into YOU that the point was to HAVE more cylinders and more displacement in less physical space to GET that added torque and driveability of a larger engine without the penalty of actually having a physically larger engine...
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2004, 05:34 PM   #19
Inygknok
El del Supra
 
Inygknok's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 1,863
wat chrisv just said is actually VW's own words. the whole primary point of the VR6 was to simply try to cram the biggest engine possible in the smallest amount of space. the VR6 is atleast half as wide as a V6, and is only slightly longer than an inline-4. sure, the VR6 may be somewhat underpowered for some people, but keep in mind a few things. first, it hasnt had that much research cuz its not an old engine design (first one came out in 91 or 92 if im not mistaken). second, its first DOHC design came out in june or july of 99. the list keeps going on and on. so research and advancement isnt on the VR6's side (like the rotary vs piston ordeal). anyhow, even if the accord has more peak power than the VR6, just have a look at their powerbands for instance, VR6 wins hands down. also, the more pistons an engine has, the smoother the operation is due to the better firing. fuel efficiency is something that comes along with research. give the VR6 some time and it will most surely catch up a bit.


also, think about one thing. u say that the VR6 sacrifices up high power to have plenty of power in the low-mid range, and that fact makes it suck just cuz the Accord has power up high. all hondas with v-tec make power up high, and thats the only area where they actually make any real power. think about it. how about AWD cars? after somewhere around 60mph (sometimes a bit later), most of them start giving up cuz its a known fact that AWD isnt good at higher speeds. some thing always gets sacrificed to get a specified performance for an application. i prefer having low-mid power in a very flat and comfortable manner than having POS low-mid nothing with a short lifespan of up-high-rev-the-hell-out-of-the-thing power.
__________________


Supra: To surpass or go beyond.
Inygknok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2004, 08:05 PM   #20
thunderbird1100
CF dB-o-holic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LSU Campus
Posts: 3,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV


Common sense would then tell you that the ability to put two more cylinders and extra displacement in the space that only 4 cyls occupied would MAKE it the reason for it being special. Call me crazy, but that's what it tells me... It doesn't seem to knock into YOU that the point was to HAVE more cylinders and more displacement in less physical space to GET that added torque and driveability of a larger engine without the penalty of actually having a physically larger engine...

:sigh: Are you going senial on me now? If you have 'race' experience with Hondas you should know the BASICS on them and the i-Vtec system and your previous statement backed up your LACK of that knowledge. Dont even try and pull the young shit...Not only me dealing with Hondas but also my father (probably quite a bit older than you) has dealt with Hondas ever since the Civic CVCC's (has owned, oh about 8 different Hondas). I've been in a VR6 powered golf before and it wasnt anything to write home about. I dont care if it's 'special' because it can fit in a four banger's place (maybe to you VW owners it's the holy grail but in the real world of engines its mroe of a laughing stock)...if it doesnt make any power, then it sucks if you ask me. Maybe if VW teamed with Honda they could make an engine small AND make some power (not to mention maybe make them a bit more reliable).

Your last statement made me laugh the most, it has what? 190ft-lbs of torque...whilest Hondas ONLY .2L bigger six puts out 22 more ft-lbs (and thats actually underrated) than it (lets not forget the 40+hp advantage). Not to mention the J32 3.2L six while being .4L bigger over the VR6, like the VR6 is to the 2.4L K24, makes 48 more ft-lbs of torque and has the same amount of cylinders (quite a bit wider GAP there if you ask me but doesnt even have the cylidner advantage like the VW did over the K24.... VR6 = 24 ft-lbs advantage over the K24). IF VW had half a brain they would tune the 1.8T to 200hp and 180+ft-lbs and they would have no NEED for the VR6. The 1.8T is an excellent motor, why they even MADE the VR6 is beyond me, I guess they just wanted the SUPERIOR ULTIMATE bragging rights of 'we can fit a narrow angle V-6 in the place of a turbo or N/A I-4'. If you missed that it had a bit of sarcasum in it.
__________________
1990 Honda Accord LX Sedan
Mileage Ticker: 232,400 Miles
Stereo Mods: Coming soon...

~Blow your mind~

thunderbird1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2004, 04:52 AM   #21
Inygknok
El del Supra
 
Inygknok's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 1,863
im not sure if ur aware of this but, obviously, engines with larger displacement got more capacity for further power. second, the power for hondas come from solely their vtec and now their new i-vtec systems. in fact, some engines even have a 3 stage vtec system. the VR6 currently has only a system similar to the VVT-i on the intake side (or exhaust side, cant remember), and thats it, while the hondas have a very complex system to increase power. third, take a wild guess from who did Honda get the "i" from? yea, from Toyota's VVT-i, cuz they saw how much more improvement it offered. real pity that Honda had to depend on toyota for the "intelligence" part eh? another company that assisted in giving honda this "idea" was BMW as well. fourth, there are bigger versions of the VR6 engine, just have a look at the R32. i only heard about the VW R32 a few weeks ago and i already bothered checking out some of it specs, even if they dont come to mind atm due to some ppl arguing on msn atm, but ill remember eventually.
__________________


Supra: To surpass or go beyond.
Inygknok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2004, 09:43 AM   #22
euro_driver
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: coquitlam, bc
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
*sigh* so opinionated for such a young person...

The VR6 is special because it's a V6 that BOLTS into the place of a 4 cyl in the VW. While the HP figures are "nothing special" to you, the overall torque curve, flexibility, and driveability certainly should be. Remember, hp is only a derived number, it's torque that does the work. the 200 hp VR6 has 195 lb ft of torque at a very daily driveable 3200 rpm. The TSX you mention has 200 hp, but only 166 lb ft of torque, and it comes in over a thousand rpm higher! Yes, the Accord has 240 hp and 212 lb ft of torque (but that torque is at 5500 rpm! Not much in the way of low end, daily driver ability!), but it does it from more displacement, and a physically much larger and heavier engine (again, the point of the VR6 is to get nearly 3 liters of V6 ability in the space normally reserved for a 4 cyl engine).

Sorry that you can't really figure that out.
bump for that, a Golf with a VR6 will beat any equaly stock honda off the line anyday. VW's rule
euro_driver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2005, 12:26 AM   #23
Anthrax
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
Your last statement made me laugh the most, it has what? 190ft-lbs of torque...whilest Hondas ONLY .2L bigger six puts out 22 more ft-lbs (and thats actually underrated) than it (lets not forget the 40+hp advantage). Not to mention the J32 3.2L six while being .4L bigger over the VR6, like the VR6 is to the 2.4L K24, makes 48 more ft-lbs of torque and has the same amount of cylinders (quite a bit wider GAP there if you ask me but doesnt even have the cylidner advantage like the VW did over the K24.... VR6 = 24 ft-lbs advantage over the K24). IF VW had half a brain they would tune the 1.8T to 200hp and 180+ft-lbs and they would have no NEED for the VR6. The 1.8T is an excellent motor, why they even MADE the VR6 is beyond me, I guess they just wanted the SUPERIOR ULTIMATE bragging rights of 'we can fit a narrow angle V-6 in the place of a turbo or N/A I-4'. If you missed that it had a bit of sarcasum in it.

I just registered to say that, dude, you don't really know what you're talking about. Do you race around all day? If so, fantastic, keep it on the track and what you're saying might make some sense. I sincerely doubt this is true. Numbers, contrary to your belief, don't mean everything. The true test would be to take a honda with your vaunted VTEC or even iVTEC and a VR6 golf or jetta. Drive both for a year and tell me which one was better suited for what you use the car for.

Once again thunderbird, unless you're on the track all day, or pretend in your mind that public roads are the track, you would eat your words. That is, if the mk4 VW didnt fall apart on you...
Anthrax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2005, 07:11 PM   #24
NHVeeDub
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1
Wow.

This thread got posted elsewhere, and here I am.... I'm obviously biased but I wanted to maybe tie a couple things together for those who hadn't yet. As a VR6 owner - I am rather defensive on stuff like this

-The original 12v VR6 engine is about 13+/- years old. One shouldn't compare it with a Honda design of a couple years ago. Let's compare apples to apples shall we? Early 90's Vs. Early 90's. Anyone here with Honda knowledge, that would not be me, feel free to elaborate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
The 1.8T is an excellent motor, why they even MADE the VR6 is beyond me
-Since the VR6 was put into production in the early 90's, and the 1.8T not until the late 90's, one could see how VW chose to make the VR6.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
IF VW had half a brain they would tune the 1.8T to 200hp and 180+ft-lbs

-Ding-ding! The VR6 has been removed from the MK5 Jetta AND Golf in favor of a 200hp turbo. The VR6 will live on in Passat's, Toureag's and some special edition autos.

-The R32 has a 24v 3.2L VR6 engine, 240 horses.

-There is a 3.6L VR6, though not in economy models like Golfs and Jettas.

I can admire the HP numbers one can get from a 4 cylinder, even the gas mileage, but for my tastes, nothing compares to 200 naturally aspirated horses in a large displacement 6. I don't care if a turbo 4 has better numbers - (on paper)... it's people like me that are glad VW had the engineering know-how to cram that kind of power in the space that was designed for a 4 cylinder.

Sure, I don't like Hondas. (It's not the brand I hate, it's the fans) But I won't knock Honda engineering. Great mileage making great little green cars. Wonderful. I'm excited.
NHVeeDub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2005, 11:35 PM   #25
thunderbird1100
CF dB-o-holic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LSU Campus
Posts: 3,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHVeeDub
This thread got posted elsewhere, and here I am.... I'm obviously biased but I wanted to maybe tie a couple things together for those who hadn't yet. As a VR6 owner - I am rather defensive on stuff like this

-The original 12v VR6 engine is about 13+/- years old. One shouldn't compare it with a Honda design of a couple years ago. Let's compare apples to apples shall we? Early 90's Vs. Early 90's. Anyone here with Honda knowledge, that would not be me, feel free to elaborate.


-Since the VR6 was put into production in the early 90's, and the 1.8T not until the late 90's, one could see how VW chose to make the VR6.


-Ding-ding! The VR6 has been removed from the MK5 Jetta AND Golf in favor of a 200hp turbo. The VR6 will live on in Passat's, Toureag's and some special edition autos.

-The R32 has a 24v 3.2L VR6 engine, 240 horses.

-There is a 3.6L VR6, though not in economy models like Golfs and Jettas.

I can admire the HP numbers one can get from a 4 cylinder, even the gas mileage, but for my tastes, nothing compares to 200 naturally aspirated horses in a large displacement 6. I don't care if a turbo 4 has better numbers - (on paper)... it's people like me that are glad VW had the engineering know-how to cram that kind of power in the space that was designed for a 4 cylinder.

Sure, I don't like Hondas. (It's not the brand I hate, it's the fans) But I won't knock Honda engineering. Great mileage making great little green cars. Wonderful. I'm excited.

The J series engines have been around since the late 90s, not too long after the original VR-6. Here are the current numbers for USDM J series engines.
3.0L SOHC 24v vtec - 240hp/212tq (Accord)
3.2L SOHC 24v vtec - 270hp/238tq (TL)
3.5L SOHC 24v i-vtec - 300hp/260tq (RL)
Yes, all of those are Naturally Aspirated. In JDM form they have that 3.0L unit making 260hp. Note that 3.5L unit making as much hp an tq as it does, in only SOHC form at that. From what I can find the 3.6L DOHC from VW is rumored to only make 280hp (if that) and I can't find torque specs anywhere.

Honda only had one V-6 engine in the early 90s and that was the C series which powered the NSX and Legend respectively. In NSX guise Honda rated the C30 (3.0L 24v DOHC Vtec V-6) at 270hp and 210tq and in Legend guise they rated the C32a5 (3.2L 24v SOHC non-vtec V-6) at 230hp and 210tq.

I meant to type 'MAKE' instead of 'MADE'. Freudian slip ( ). But yes, 7 months ago when i posted last on this they hadn't announced the 2.0T yet. I guess they do have brains at VW. Guess they were listening to me .
__________________
1990 Honda Accord LX Sedan
Mileage Ticker: 232,400 Miles
Stereo Mods: Coming soon...

~Blow your mind~

thunderbird1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2005, 11:42 PM   #26
MultiJet
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5
In VAG(VW Audi group) corporation They have tuned up 1.8t engine to 240 hp in audi TT and it has 290NM of tourqe.

German type of driving is a bit different then what would you see in US, most people drive manual transmission, engines are made for comfort and not for max hp and are made to last. BTW in vw they make engines that they can pack in a lot of cars of diferent types, there are at least 4 brands powerd by vw engines(vw,audi,skoda,seat). Reasarch in europe is directed into disel engines (they represent nearly 50%) And there is no stupid person in VW R&D

vw engine max rpm(up to 5500)
honda engine max rpm(7000+)

The stongest car disel engine on the planet is vw V10TDI, 5000ccm, 313hp, 720NM of tourqe. (fuel consumption 70% of comsumption of gasoline driven car with same hp) Only when you will have the knowladge to build such engine you will have the right so speak of infirriority of vw engeeneers.

P.S.
Engeneering is a science of compromises.
German made products are made to last. (No mexico isn't german)
Bare in mind that 120mm cannons on american tanks are licence made Reihnmetall cannons
There is no need to construct 300 bhp 1.8l engine for a few jerkoffs in us it just wouldn't pay off.
MultiJet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2005, 06:20 PM   #27
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbird1100
Your last statement made me laugh the most, it has what? 190ft-lbs of torque...whilest Hondas ONLY .2L bigger six puts out 22 more ft-lbs (and thats actually underrated) than it

I didn't come back here after my last post. Guess I should have. You apaprently only had eyes for one thing: peak numbers. But you failed to look at overall power CURVE and where those numbers are made at. The Accord makes more, but at nearly 2000 rpm higher! That's less flexibility and not as smooth for driving around town. What part about "useable powerband" eludes your grasp, magazine racer?
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2005, 08:05 PM   #28
thunderbird1100
CF dB-o-holic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LSU Campus
Posts: 3,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
I didn't come back here after my last post. Guess I should have. You apaprently only had eyes for one thing: peak numbers. But you failed to look at overall power CURVE and where those numbers are made at. The Accord makes more, but at nearly 2000 rpm higher! That's less flexibility and not as smooth for driving around town. What part about "useable powerband" eludes your grasp, magazine racer?

What keeps eluding your mind when I keep saying 'I-VTEC' in nearly every post. Read up on it, all your misconceptions will be answered. I-vtec = smoother powerband, more low-mid range (what it was made for).
__________________
1990 Honda Accord LX Sedan
Mileage Ticker: 232,400 Miles
Stereo Mods: Coming soon...

~Blow your mind~

thunderbird1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2005, 12:49 AM   #29
jasper02
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zalight
I got screwed, I decided to buy the VR6 gti, went to the dealership, signed everything and was almost out the door when suddenly they turned me down because I dont have enough credit. They put me through the paces and had me staring at paperwork for two hours before they turned me down.

I proceeded to yell at the manager for 15 minutes about all this and how they got my hopes of getting a new car up, and how I thought I would be leaving in my brand new GTI but instead had to get into a hunk of crap again blah blah blah. I yelled so much in fact that in order to calm me down he gave me 50 bucks cash for all the trouble.

I was much happier when I got into my CRX with 50 more dollars and left.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT
jasper02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2005, 05:57 AM   #30
914 VR6
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2
I believe the VR6 won Popular Science magazine's "Best of What's New" award when it came out. The motor has also been on Wards Ten Best Engines list. Here are a few quotes from some car magazines and an article I scanned from Automobile Magazine.








914 VR6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2002 - 2011 Car Forums. All rights reserved.