RE: Honda Civic Type R
Discussion
That Golf would be my second choice. I think my best driving day ever came at the wheel of a Megane Trophy shod with Dunlop R tyres at Spa. What a car. It was quicker through Pouhon than anything else that day except for a couple of Caterham Superlight Rs. I vividly recall a Ferrari 360 spin off into the kitty litter there as it tried to get rid of the pesky Renault.
Gazboy said:
Re-this turbo waiting to spool- what turbos have you guys been driving? I assure you you'll be waiting for Vtec to kick in longer than you'll wait for boost.
VTEC doesn't kick in over time like a turbo. VTEC is instantaneous and irrelevant to load, and throttle position. It's like saying your waiting for the VANOS on an M3 to "kick in"
The reality is VTEC adds little torque than you already have, what it does do is sustain the torque you already have for an extended range where the envelope of performance of any fixed cam giving good low-end torque would end.
This means revs, and this means shorter gearing potential, which = magnified torque.
Do the same with the king of torque and low-lag, the 535d BMW 5 series, then do the same for the 530i...
The petrol NA 6 pot has more instantaneous power to weight at the wheels at any given rpm across the range.
I think even if you drove the new 997 Turbo you would detect lag vs a good revvy NA unit, a turbo no matter how good takes time to respond to the initial flood of high-energy exhaust gasses and spool to peak flow at that given rpm.
Turbo = cheap effective outright performance, but it's far from competing with decent modern NA units!
Dave
Hello All,
Somebody said:
"...this shows the FD as 5.06, which IS very short gearing"
Just been reading comments re gearing, FD etc. I would suggest that as the overall diameter of the 07 wheel/tyre is (slightly) greater than the old model, Honda would have to fit a lower FD just keep overall gearing the same.
I've just put some nos through the calculator to see it how actually looks:
Note: all internal ratio's are the same for old/new model.
1st - 3.266
2nd - 2.130
3rd - 1.517
4th - 1.147
5th - 0.921
6th - 0.738
FD - old: 4.764 new: 5.062
Wheel/tyre OD - old: 605mm new (std 18in) : 622mm
Above mm't is near-as-damn-it with a tape measure.
This gives (in 6th):
old: 20.15mph/1000rpm or 3474rpm at 70mph.
new: 19.52mph/1000rpm or 3586rpm at 70mph.
So not a huge difference.
Must get out more etc....
Cheers.
Somebody said:
"...this shows the FD as 5.06, which IS very short gearing"
Just been reading comments re gearing, FD etc. I would suggest that as the overall diameter of the 07 wheel/tyre is (slightly) greater than the old model, Honda would have to fit a lower FD just keep overall gearing the same.
I've just put some nos through the calculator to see it how actually looks:
Note: all internal ratio's are the same for old/new model.
1st - 3.266
2nd - 2.130
3rd - 1.517
4th - 1.147
5th - 0.921
6th - 0.738
FD - old: 4.764 new: 5.062
Wheel/tyre OD - old: 605mm new (std 18in) : 622mm
Above mm't is near-as-damn-it with a tape measure.
This gives (in 6th):
old: 20.15mph/1000rpm or 3474rpm at 70mph.
new: 19.52mph/1000rpm or 3586rpm at 70mph.
So not a huge difference.
Must get out more etc....
Cheers.
Edited by crankshaft on Tuesday 20th February 18:10
havoc said:
Ah...one last piece of evidence:-
www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=153021&automobile-Honda
...this shows the FD as 5.06, which IS very short gearing and is far more likely to be accurate than the data you showed.
Which I got straight from Honda themsleves & have double-checked for you, and I didn't make a typo.
Ciao
Zak
Test drove one of these the other day. had been offered one in a fantastic contract hire deal that really couldn't be refused. So along to the dealer I trotted !
I loved the look of the new shape and thought that the interior was brilliant inc the seats and futuristic dash layout.
We set off with the salesman driving to start, who took it easy till the engine was warm. After maybe 2 miles or so he floored it from standstill.
After hitting the rev-limiter in 1st and 2nd gears, commented "thats the power of the v-tec " with a smile on his face !
Well, to say I was disappointed was an understatement ! There was no real feeling of acceleration, no thump in the back, no sense of power! The only way I can describe it was as if it was powered by a large electric motor ?! To think that this car is timed from 0-62 in 6.5 seconds amazes me !!
I then had a drive thinking it may be his failings as a driver that let the car down, but no, just the same, I realise that it may be different if going for the handling side, but for a car to be classed as a 'hot hatch' this car really needs more get up and go to compare with todays competition !
Really, really disappointed, as I had already chosen my colour and spec !
I loved the look of the new shape and thought that the interior was brilliant inc the seats and futuristic dash layout.
We set off with the salesman driving to start, who took it easy till the engine was warm. After maybe 2 miles or so he floored it from standstill.
After hitting the rev-limiter in 1st and 2nd gears, commented "thats the power of the v-tec " with a smile on his face !
Well, to say I was disappointed was an understatement ! There was no real feeling of acceleration, no thump in the back, no sense of power! The only way I can describe it was as if it was powered by a large electric motor ?! To think that this car is timed from 0-62 in 6.5 seconds amazes me !!
I then had a drive thinking it may be his failings as a driver that let the car down, but no, just the same, I realise that it may be different if going for the handling side, but for a car to be classed as a 'hot hatch' this car really needs more get up and go to compare with todays competition !
Really, really disappointed, as I had already chosen my colour and spec !
Peely said:
We set off with the salesman driving to start, who took it easy till the engine was warm. After maybe 2 miles or so he floored it from standstill.
Christ!! I wouldn't be flooring mine after only 2 miles of driving, the oil is barely warm let alone thin enough to force the cam profile to change.Mine needs about 10 mins of drving on a warmish day before I even consider trying to push the revs over 5k and into vtec.
Once the oil is warm enough the difference is noticable, there is no kick when cold but when warm....
I still amazes me that Honda do not provide an oil temp gague on an engine that relies on oil pressure for a major part of it's performance.
I would try it again but get the car nice and warm before giving it the beans, you may be surprised.
If you think, or you oil actually takes 10 mins to warm up and reach operating pressure, then there's something seriously wrong with your oil or car.
5-10 secs or so will have the oil at full pressure, and a within a minute will have it runnier than your nose when you've the cold.
Seriously, a good 0w or 5w (essentially the same in UK climes) will be fully ready to do its job in under a minute.
The only thing most people MIGHT be doing, is waiting for the water temp gauge to reach normal level, before giving it some - which is fine, but much later than they can.
5-10 secs or so will have the oil at full pressure, and a within a minute will have it runnier than your nose when you've the cold.
Seriously, a good 0w or 5w (essentially the same in UK climes) will be fully ready to do its job in under a minute.
The only thing most people MIGHT be doing, is waiting for the water temp gauge to reach normal level, before giving it some - which is fine, but much later than they can.
PJ S said:
If you think, or you oil actually takes 10 mins to warm up and reach operating pressure, then there's something seriously wrong with your oil or car.
5-10 secs or so will have the oil at full pressure, and a within a minute will have it runnier than your nose when you've the cold.
Seriously, a good 0w or 5w (essentially the same in UK climes) will be fully ready to do its job in under a minute.
The only thing most people MIGHT be doing, is waiting for the water temp gauge to reach normal level, before giving it some - which is fine, but much later than they can.
I must correct this post, in case people do damage to their cars as a result.5-10 secs or so will have the oil at full pressure, and a within a minute will have it runnier than your nose when you've the cold.
Seriously, a good 0w or 5w (essentially the same in UK climes) will be fully ready to do its job in under a minute.
The only thing most people MIGHT be doing, is waiting for the water temp gauge to reach normal level, before giving it some - which is fine, but much later than they can.
Oil takes longer to heat up to temp than water...there's probably a scientific explanation (and I'm not sure on the operating temp of oil...might be substantially higher) but it's true.
Go drive a car with both oil-temp and water-temp gauges from cold, see which one reaches the operating mark first. I guarantee it'll be the water temp gauge...
Oil pressure - couldn't comment, don't know enough. And nor I suspect does PJ given his last post.
So my advice would be DO NOT VTEC the car within the first 10mins or 5 miles of driving...and at this time of year possibly longer. I tend to use 'water temp + 2mins' as a minimum guide...
Feel free to argue against my 'lack of knowledge', but the oil viscosity given by its lower weight (0, 5, 10, etc) is the fluidity when cold.
It's not the fact oil needs temperature to work - the upper number (30, 40, etc) is the viscosity when the engine is at operating temperature, and you need an oil that doesn't shear easily, hence why racing oil tends to be 60 due to the extreme heat and pressure created in those engines and constant high rpm.
Now, if you still believe it takes minutes for your oil to start circulating, then sadly you're very mistaken - less than 5 seconds is the case. The myth that today's cars run for 30 secs or more with little to no oil is completely false.
One thing to remember which you pointed out, is that although water is more fluid at all temperatures above freezing, it doesn't absorb heat any quicker than oil, and the oil is probably in contact with warmer surfaces from the start, so reaching operating temp sooner than the water does.
But, if you use the water gauge plus some added time, then there's nothing wrong with that.
It's not the fact oil needs temperature to work - the upper number (30, 40, etc) is the viscosity when the engine is at operating temperature, and you need an oil that doesn't shear easily, hence why racing oil tends to be 60 due to the extreme heat and pressure created in those engines and constant high rpm.
Now, if you still believe it takes minutes for your oil to start circulating, then sadly you're very mistaken - less than 5 seconds is the case. The myth that today's cars run for 30 secs or more with little to no oil is completely false.
One thing to remember which you pointed out, is that although water is more fluid at all temperatures above freezing, it doesn't absorb heat any quicker than oil, and the oil is probably in contact with warmer surfaces from the start, so reaching operating temp sooner than the water does.
But, if you use the water gauge plus some added time, then there's nothing wrong with that.
http://www.accordr.org/index.php?showtopic=11110
Interesting topic from the ATR forum.
Worth registering.
Interesting topic from the ATR forum.
Worth registering.
havoc said:
PJ S said:
If you think, or you oil actually takes 10 mins to warm up and reach operating pressure, then there's something seriously wrong with your oil or car.
5-10 secs or so will have the oil at full pressure, and a within a minute will have it runnier than your nose when you've the cold.
Seriously, a good 0w or 5w (essentially the same in UK climes) will be fully ready to do its job in under a minute.
The only thing most people MIGHT be doing, is waiting for the water temp gauge to reach normal level, before giving it some - which is fine, but much later than they can.
I must correct this post, in case people do damage to their cars as a result.5-10 secs or so will have the oil at full pressure, and a within a minute will have it runnier than your nose when you've the cold.
Seriously, a good 0w or 5w (essentially the same in UK climes) will be fully ready to do its job in under a minute.
The only thing most people MIGHT be doing, is waiting for the water temp gauge to reach normal level, before giving it some - which is fine, but much later than they can.
Oil takes longer to heat up to temp than water...there's probably a scientific explanation (and I'm not sure on the operating temp of oil...might be substantially higher) but it's true.
Go drive a car with both oil-temp and water-temp gauges from cold, see which one reaches the operating mark first. I guarantee it'll be the water temp gauge...
Oil pressure - couldn't comment, don't know enough. And nor I suspect does PJ given his last post.
So my advice would be DO NOT VTEC the car within the first 10mins or 5 miles of driving...and at this time of year possibly longer. I tend to use 'water temp + 2mins' as a minimum guide...
Is a car that makes its power at lower revs at an advantage here, because you can get more power before the car is warm with no need to use revs to obtain it?
Incidentally there's a Focus petrol owner on my road (a poorly chavved up example) who leaves for work early. Nearly every morning he properly thrashes it out of the road, sometimes right up to the rev limiter, from stone cold. I am wondering how long it will survive with this treatment.
Oh and sorry, fully back on topic I've passengered in the new CTR, it didn't feel as accelerative as I expected which disappointed me, however the speeds it could attain and maintain on a B road did impress me. It felt less brawny than my 2.5 n/a four cylinder of almost identical output, but also infinitely quieter and smoother.
PJ S said:
Feel free to argue against my 'lack of knowledge', but the oil viscosity given by its lower weight (0, 5, 10, etc) is the fluidity when cold.
It's not the fact oil needs temperature to work - the upper number (30, 40, etc) is the viscosity when the engine is at operating temperature, and you need an oil that doesn't shear easily, hence why racing oil tends to be 60 due to the extreme heat and pressure created in those engines and constant high rpm.
Now, if you still believe it takes minutes for your oil to start circulating, then sadly you're very mistaken - less than 5 seconds is the case. The myth that today's cars run for 30 secs or more with little to no oil is completely false.
One thing to remember which you pointed out, is that although water is more fluid at all temperatures above freezing, it doesn't absorb heat any quicker than oil, and the oil is probably in contact with warmer surfaces from the start, so reaching operating temp sooner than the water does.
But, if you use the water gauge plus some added time, then there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't know who would give their car the beans though, cold oil is still thick even if it is thin enough to flow at the required pressure, until fully warm.It's not the fact oil needs temperature to work - the upper number (30, 40, etc) is the viscosity when the engine is at operating temperature, and you need an oil that doesn't shear easily, hence why racing oil tends to be 60 due to the extreme heat and pressure created in those engines and constant high rpm.
Now, if you still believe it takes minutes for your oil to start circulating, then sadly you're very mistaken - less than 5 seconds is the case. The myth that today's cars run for 30 secs or more with little to no oil is completely false.
One thing to remember which you pointed out, is that although water is more fluid at all temperatures above freezing, it doesn't absorb heat any quicker than oil, and the oil is probably in contact with warmer surfaces from the start, so reaching operating temp sooner than the water does.
But, if you use the water gauge plus some added time, then there's nothing wrong with that.
Just as much for a turbo on an FI car, or the gearbox oil and components being cold and contracted, along with the fine tolerance revvy engine bottom end, revving a cold engine, even if the oil is warm, still isn't so clever (imho)
As per the person saying it was slow, thats what the flat torque output does. The human mind can't really sense acceleration levels, only rate of change of acceleration is really noticed.
In a way, I found the older Jordan Civic and my GTi6 'felt' faster because they built up a bit as you revved longer. The CTR (older shape) and ST170 on the other hand, with their wide flat torque outputs, feel less alive at the top-end because the push was pretty much the same back down at 2000rpm where you started off.
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
In a way, I found the older Jordan Civic and my GTi6 'felt' faster because they built up a bit as you revved longer. The CTR (older shape) and ST170 on the other hand, with their wide flat torque outputs, feel less alive at the top-end because the push was pretty much the same back down at 2000rpm where you started off.
Dave
There is a stark contrast between performance of a CTR at 2000 rpm vs 6000rpm. Even with 3.2 litres vtec gives a definite dual personality. Conversely my 306GTi always felt more linear in delivery and did not have anything like the Jekyl and Hyde contrast of a vtec.Dave
havoc said:
PJ S said:
If you think, or you oil actually takes 10 mins to warm up and reach operating pressure, then there's something seriously wrong with your oil or car.
5-10 secs or so will have the oil at full pressure, and a within a minute will have it runnier than your nose when you've the cold.
Seriously, a good 0w or 5w (essentially the same in UK climes) will be fully ready to do its job in under a minute.
The only thing most people MIGHT be doing, is waiting for the water temp gauge to reach normal level, before giving it some - which is fine, but much later than they can.
I must correct this post, in case people do damage to their cars as a result.5-10 secs or so will have the oil at full pressure, and a within a minute will have it runnier than your nose when you've the cold.
Seriously, a good 0w or 5w (essentially the same in UK climes) will be fully ready to do its job in under a minute.
The only thing most people MIGHT be doing, is waiting for the water temp gauge to reach normal level, before giving it some - which is fine, but much later than they can.
Oil takes longer to heat up to temp than water...there's probably a scientific explanation (and I'm not sure on the operating temp of oil...might be substantially higher) but it's true.
Go drive a car with both oil-temp and water-temp gauges from cold, see which one reaches the operating mark first. I guarantee it'll be the water temp gauge...
Oil pressure - couldn't comment, don't know enough. And nor I suspect does PJ given his last post.
So my advice would be DO NOT VTEC the car within the first 10mins or 5 miles of driving...and at this time of year possibly longer. I tend to use 'water temp + 2mins' as a minimum guide...
It's good practice to let any car warm up.
As far as oil pressure is concerned, yes you'll have full oil pressure when the cars cold becasue it's cold - oil is thick etc. Just because you've got oil pressure doesn't mean it's flowed throughout the engine and is protecting and lubricating as it should. When it warms up oil pressure should drop at like for like engine speed (upto the control pressure for normal running conditions). I would say that there is little chance of an oil being ready to do its job properly to the best of its ability within a minute of cold starting.
Again, let the car reach operating temps.
ETA. If you've driven a new "M" car lately you'll notice a variable rev limit based on oil temp starting from somewhere around the 4k mark IIRC. It takes quite some time for the lights to go green and allow full use of the 8k rev range.....
Edited by ferrisbueller on Wednesday 14th November 20:09
@ Pentoman - not knowing your model or make, or age even, but I'd be concerned about running 15w unless your owner's manual specifically calls for it.
In older cars, heavier weight oil is used or suggested as a fix for worn oil seals, so there's less chance for oil blow-by and depositing on the upper cylinder wall or along the intake valve pathway, which can lead to fouling of the throttle body.
I'd have thought a good 5-10w would've been more in keeping with a high revving twincam engine, but as always, read your owners manual to be safer than sorrier.
In older cars, heavier weight oil is used or suggested as a fix for worn oil seals, so there's less chance for oil blow-by and depositing on the upper cylinder wall or along the intake valve pathway, which can lead to fouling of the throttle body.
I'd have thought a good 5-10w would've been more in keeping with a high revving twincam engine, but as always, read your owners manual to be safer than sorrier.
PJ S said:
@ Pentoman - not knowing your model or make, or age even, but I'd be concerned about running 15w unless your owner's manual specifically calls for it.
Just a quick question; Are you qualified to be offering blind advice to people on such matters? PJ S said:
In older cars, heavier weight oil is used or suggested as a fix for worn oil seals, so there's less chance for oil blow-by and depositing on the upper cylinder wall or along the intake valve pathway, which can lead to fouling of the throttle body.
Could you explain that again? Don't follow. Do you mean leakage past the valve stem seal?PJ S said:
I'd have thought a good 5-10w would've been more in keeping with a high revving twincam engine,
Is it not possible for a 15w to have the same lubrication properties as a 5 or 10w at operating temp, depending on its constituents? Synth/semi-synth etc etc. Is CG/CH/CI not also as important. Interestingly my Honda dealer uses a 0/30w fully synth whereas a previous one used a 10w/30 semi.It's not a black and white subject.
PJ S said:
but as always, read your owners manual to be safer than sorrier.
I think that answers question 1.Edited by ferrisbueller on Thursday 15th November 13:46
ferris, my point about running 15w is unless it's called for by the owners manual or acting as a cure for some worn seals, it's a bit thick when cold to be offering lubrication at start up.
I've no idea how many cold starts the member does, nor how much stop-starting traffic he sits in, but if he's using 15w for no other reason than that's what he thinks he needs, then he should look at a thinner oil to help with cold starts and improvements in economy - so long as the oil meets the API or ACEA requirements his car needs.
Like I said, older classic cars often run a heavier weight oil due to the seals being worn, helping to minimise oil being burnt.
As for the other point you were unclear about - http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/faq/EnginePerformanceS... explains it pretty well.
Anyway, we're WAAAAAY off topic with this, so let's not ruin this thread any more than it may already have.
I've no idea how many cold starts the member does, nor how much stop-starting traffic he sits in, but if he's using 15w for no other reason than that's what he thinks he needs, then he should look at a thinner oil to help with cold starts and improvements in economy - so long as the oil meets the API or ACEA requirements his car needs.
Like I said, older classic cars often run a heavier weight oil due to the seals being worn, helping to minimise oil being burnt.
As for the other point you were unclear about - http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/faq/EnginePerformanceS... explains it pretty well.
Anyway, we're WAAAAAY off topic with this, so let's not ruin this thread any more than it may already have.
Edited by PJ S on Thursday 15th November 21:24
ferrisbueller said:
Mr Whippy said:
In a way, I found the older Jordan Civic and my GTi6 'felt' faster because they built up a bit as you revved longer. The CTR (older shape) and ST170 on the other hand, with their wide flat torque outputs, feel less alive at the top-end because the push was pretty much the same back down at 2000rpm where you started off.
Dave
There is a stark contrast between performance of a CTR at 2000 rpm vs 6000rpm. Even with 3.2 litres vtec gives a definite dual personality. Conversely my 306GTi always felt more linear in delivery and did not have anything like the Jekyl and Hyde contrast of a vtec.Dave
I think the contrast of delivery is more down to the steepness of the power curve and rate of change of acceleration over the rev range.
Also the expectation that the engine won't push as hard as it does right through the rev range as it does at peak power, makes linear output engines feel really top-end revvy, but infact they are just holding onto their torque better because of the VTEC.
I do realise the S2000 engine and the 3.2 V6 are much more characteristic though, with a real step from a low rpm cam to a high power cam, but the CTR just isn't that bad at all, infact I think as engines go it's a bloody great approach. Just people's perceptions paint it in a bad light as if it's revvy. Yes it's revvy, but it's also damn torquey just like the E46 M3's engine!
Dave
Gassing Station | Honda | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff