Repair-It

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA-H7mSgQXc

I think VTEC just kicked in, yo.

I didn't know these were a 1.7L.

Trapped 88mph, which was decent in 1992. Almost $19k though.

What did a 93 Camaro Z28 cost? That probably trapped about 100. Yes, handling, light weight, blah blah.

The 90s are back:

I drive a '91 Integra LS, with a B18 motor. I put in a stage-2 clutch, but the rest is stock. And I regularly blow the doors off anything on the road. My Teg is fast, and the funnest car I've ever driven. Before this Acura, I had a VW Beetle, and before that it was a Chevy S-10, and before that it was a Pontiac Grad Prix with a 455. So anyone who thinks I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to what's fast and what's not, don't know squat.

What was the date on that comment? It's possible I wrote that back in the day

Well your 94 LS probably did blow the doors off poorly tuned mid 80s Chevy trucks with a lift and 36" mud tires. Which, of course, didn't prove much except that you lived in Maine.

Let me put a spin on the HP/liter argument: The only thing high specific output tells you is how much headroom you have to make more power in the aftermarket. It also tells you what kind of RPMs are probably needed to produce the rated power. It doesn't tell you anything else.

I guess there is one other thing. High specific output generally means you can get away with a smaller, lighter, less clunky transmission, because it doesn't have to handle high torque. Instead, it just carries a low amount of torque out to a high RPM.

kevm14 wrote:Well your 94 LS probably did blow the doors off poorly tuned mid 80s Chevy trucks with a lift and 36" mud tires. Which, of course, didn't prove much except that you lived in Maine.

I regret that I never took my 94 LS to Epping. I bet it would have trapped 90 with I/H/E. Back in the day, that was faster than a lot of stuff.

kevm14 wrote:Let me put a spin on the HP/liter argument: The only thing high specific output tells you is how much headroom you have to make more power in the aftermarket. It also tells you what kind of RPMs are probably needed to produce the rated power. It doesn't tell you anything else.

I guess there is one other thing. High specific output generally means you can get away with a smaller, lighter, less clunky transmission, because it doesn't have to handle high torque. Instead, it just carries a low amount of torque out to a high RPM.

I always found high hp/liter cars to be more exhilarating to drive, but I think that is a matter of personal preference.

My friend had a 99 GS-R Coupe/Hatchback:

The GS-R differs from bigger Acuras because it is not nearly as quiet. Not only is the driver more involved with the vehicle, the sounds of the engine working are always present. Many driving enthusiasts will appreciate that since it puts them in touch with what the vehicle is doing.

The benefit of 170 horsepower in a 2,667-pound car shows up when you need speed

http://www.cars.com/acura/integra/1999/expert-reviews

The double-wishbone suspension, tuned to deliver a performance-oriented ride, keeps the GS-R glued to the road. It relishes twisty highways, where it can strut its stuff. The sports suspension has excellent road feel and lets the driver know what the car is doing at all times.

Bob wrote:

kevm14 wrote:Let me put a spin on the HP/liter argument: The only thing high specific output tells you is how much headroom you have to make more power in the aftermarket. It also tells you what kind of RPMs are probably needed to produce the rated power. It doesn't tell you anything else.

I guess there is one other thing. High specific output generally means you can get away with a smaller, lighter, less clunky transmission, because it doesn't have to handle high torque. Instead, it just carries a low amount of torque out to a high RPM.

I always found high hp/liter cars to be more exhilarating to drive, but I think that is a matter of personal preference.

It definitely is. I was trying to stick to objective characteristics. Your more exhilarating is my "why is there no torque or throttle response." Maybe the best thing about larger displacement engines with torque is that you don't have to wind them all the way out at WOT just to have a good time. But, personal preference.

kevm14 wrote:Your more exhilarating is my "why is there no torque or throttle response."

Its because you need to downshift.