NZHondas.com Membership is Open | Becoming an Exclusive Member has a number of benefits, you get an NZHondas.com sticker, a credit card style membership card, all of your limits on the forum are increased
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 89

Thread: VTEC vs. MIVEC

  1. #26
    5,000rpm (VTEC Power!)
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    900
    Location
    New Plymouth
    look at the s2000 a 2ltr 4 cylinder non turbo producing over 240hp

    in my personal experience from racing them to watching them race vtec is a lot quicker than mivec,and im pretty sure vtec was made before mivec.

    and going all out turbo etc i have yet to see a mivec get into the 8 second 1/4 mile which vtecs are doing in the states.

    4wd /fwd both have there advantages and disadvantages ,i have read many articles were the type r has out handled wrx's

  2. #27
    5,000rpm (VTEC Power!)
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    900
    Location
    New Plymouth
    in a older issue of fast fours a standard integra type r is put up against a full on race mirage type r (mirage type r cup car,race engine,suspension,tyres and fully stripped etc) the vtec was 2 seconds slower around the track but was quicker on straights ,it said it only lost out because of poor tyre grip(standard 15"tyres)

  3. #28

    mivec vs vtec

    someone should watch serious performance 4 to find out about mivecs they get a race car driver to drive a modified one around oran park and he basically says after driving it all that changes when mivec kicks in is the noise hahaahaahahahahah go the vtec

  4. #29
    7,000rpm (Peak Power) Disinfo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,014
    Location
    Upper Hutt
    DamNie: Good post, it's always good to see someone thats unbiased and sees the good points of all cars

    Quote Originally Posted by Qc
    Pdu-NZ:

    I am a fan of VTEC but..iisnt ur VTEC a 2.2 and the lancer being 1.6?..

    and i heard mitsi cars are tend to be heavier than hondas, hence the extra ponnies quoted probably dont help much..
    Fair point about 2.2 vs 1.6

    I think you're wrong with the weight figures though - a 1600 DOHC VTEC Integra weighs a bit more than the equivalent 1600 MIVEC Mirage. As I see it Honda rates their engines dead on from factory, while Mitsi and Toyota tend to overate a bit - just going from dyno plots I've seen.

  5. #30
    3,000rpm (Grandma Drag)
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    327
    Quote Originally Posted by SiRaccord
    in a older issue of fast fours a standard integra type r is put up against a full on race mirage type r (mirage type r cup car,race engine,suspension,tyres and fully stripped etc) the vtec was 2 seconds slower around the track but was quicker on straights ,it said it only lost out because of poor tyre grip(standard 15"tyres)
    No buddy you'd be totally wrong there about the Mirage Typre R Cup, the rules only allow a totally standard engine(apart from breathing).
    They limit the engine modds to keep costs down and so driver ability shows up better.
    Yes they are totally stripped have good suspension setups etc. But to add to the weight they have to have an 8-point steel cage... have you ever lifted a steel cage.......? well they weigh about 40kgs.
    But yeah put some decent tyres and a cage on a teg and you'll still be about 1 sec slower. I bet the teg was not standard though so my comparison is probably not fair.

  6. #31
    Team NZH: Order of Merit Pharnos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    1,798
    Location
    Riverhead
    straying from the run of posts here, and back to vtec vs mivec, i heard something about stroke/bore ratio, can't remember what it is called, but apparantly the b16a has a ration of 1.74 and the most desired ratio for best performance is 1.75, those figures might be out, but what i am trying to say is that the b16a has a very very good stroke/bore ratio...someone on the board will be able to explain this better (cement?)
    b www.borough11.co.nz ლ(╹◡╹ლ)

  7. #32
    6,000rpm (Max Torque) crshbndct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    2,349
    Location
    Whangarei
    i heard that teh mitsubishi head technical said to the press about mivec: "yes we did get it from honda but at least we got it"
    Current: CE1/EB1 Previous: AW11, R32, KE70, KE70, VPv8, da6, ef7, EB1, en1, cd4, bighorn, a183a, a183a, a184a, bg8z, e30, and a coupla saabs

  8. #33
    **someone should watch serious performance 4 to find out about mivecs they get a race car driver to drive a modified one around oran park and he basically says after driving it all that changes when mivec kicks in is the noise hahaahaahahahahah go the vtec**

    The kick you feel is an increase in torque. Er..which isnt always a good thing. The perfect engine would have the same torque (lots of it too) from idle to redline. Ever driven a BMW M3?

    Saying that, i like the kickm thats why I have a turbo

    Big kick Er.. Feels a LOT faster than a say a VTEC, Prelude er.. but sadly, it isnt a lot faster heheh

  9. #34
    Exclusive Member pxpx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    6,064
    Location
    Auckland
    It feels alot faster becaus the kick is much earlier.. 3000rpm for a turbo.. 6000rpm for a vtec (approx..)

  10. #35
    5,000rpm (VTEC Power!) Simon K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,010
    Location
    Wellington
    Quote Originally Posted by Accord_SiR

    Speaking about Lancer EVOs. The engine is an old crap (from the 70s) and it has been there from EVO 1 to 7. What a shame, Mitsubishi can't make a better engine?
    I think Mitsubishi stayed with the 4G63 motor in the EVO series due to all those pesky rallies that the cars have competed successfully in. I assume the GDi technology which has been used on various other Mitsi engines will make its way into the EVO series someday.
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    In general...
    VTEC and MIVEC engines are different capacities, often individually designed to achieve differing goals- Economy or performance(1.5l, 1.6l). Perhaps Honda tend to err towards the performance side, hence the "Type R" models that are generally the flagship for that particular chassis.

    I don't believe Mitsubishi Hand build(Or lavish the same level of attention on) any of their range so it's perhaps unfair to compare any "Type R" to a Factory Mitsi.

    If you want to put "Car A" up against "Car B", compare apples with apples. If a 2.2l Prelude can beat a 1.5l Lancer, so be it. If you then compare a 1.5l Civic with a 1.5l Mirage, the end result would be a fairer indication of which one is the better performer

    The World doesn't stop at the end of the drag strip. Day to day driving may show one to be easier to live with, the other less so.

    Just my 2c

  11. #36
    7,000rpm (Peak Power) Disinfo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,014
    Location
    Upper Hutt
    Accord SiR: How can you possibly say the Evo engines are shitty? Do they produce more power/torque than an H22a?

    The DOHC VTEC in the NSX has been around for many years now with only fairly minor changes - can't Honda build a better engine? Man they must suck

    If there is no reason to change engines then why do it? Maybe Mitsi wants to keep the raw feel of the Evo, not make it into a refined luxury car. Personally i think Honda has taken a step forward and two steps back with the latest iVTEC engines, it's not that they're not good, it's just they seem to err more on the side of refinement than the old B series. Give me a B18 Type R spec engine over the new K-series any day.

  12. #37
    7,000rpm (Peak Power) Disinfo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,014
    Location
    Upper Hutt
    SimonK: I'd find it really interesting to see what my car (1600 DOHC VTEC Integra) would do against a Mivec Mirage (they come in 1600 don't they?)

    Just because my friend wants to buy one, and I want to know if I'm going to need any mods to beat him

  13. #38
    3,000rpm (Grandma Drag)
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    327
    Quote Originally Posted by Pharnos
    straying from the run of posts here, and back to vtec vs mivec, i heard something about stroke/bore ratio, can't remember what it is called, but apparantly the b16a has a ration of 1.74 and the most desired ratio for best performance is 1.75, those figures might be out, but what i am trying to say is that the b16a has a very very good stroke/bore ratio...someone on the board will be able to explain this better (cement?)
    It basically goes like this, shorter stroke less distance for piston to travel more revs.
    Alot of guys will have an opinion on bore and stroke ratio's for performance.
    But its pretty stupid to just look at this for performance in the bottom end. Sure a 1.75 bore stroke ratio will have the potential to rev but torque(ie you need more bangs to get the desired cylinder fill to make torque) will normally suck because of it.
    Other things that need to be taken into account is the rod stroke ratio generally you need a very long rod on a high reving engine so the angle on the crank is not too high.. causing excess side forces and consequent detruction. But longer rods have alot more weight to them. Doesnt rev as hard!!
    And those boat anchor cranks(fullycounterbalanced) jappa's have drain more hp.
    You only have to look into endurance racing to see the real effects heavy cranks have.
    Let me explain.....
    Bmw compete's in 2 forms of racing namely sprint and endurance, both cars have exactly the same setup and motor.
    Except one has a partiallycounterbalanced(sprint) crank and the other has a fully counterbalanced(endurance), one makes 15hp more than the other.
    Now i can see why the you'd need a big boat anchor for endurance(24hour racing), but why do hondas and most japanese engines need these boat anchors too?.

    So its always going to be a trade off between performance and reliability
    Nissan is know using a bore and stroke ratio of 1.00 on there sr20det and they go real hard............ down low
    Hope this helps.

  14. #39
    LUC1D
    Guest
    well cheers guys and girls for your inputs, 2 cents worth..wateva.

    the apple with apples thing was very dimplomatic but it all comes down to a personal choice.

    u may live life at the red line..so the VTEC is cool.

    and u may like low-mid range effects..so the MIVEC is the go. [dont quote me]

    do u think that if mitsi put the amount of $$$ into their MIVEC as honda does..do u think they would as competitive? its all about the colour of money.

    different strokes for different folks.

    and a couple of people there got into the whole honda bashing, mitsi uppercuts back there, which were nasty..but u get that when u compare green apples with red apples..

    they're still apples.. :wink:

    keep it comming..

    and the 20-vavle's can take a hike. (toyota) 8)

    hands up for those who thought i had a hefty amount of clihes?

  15. #40
    This is an enjoyable thread so far, I'm glad that sensible people have been putting their views across. :wink:

    Disinfo: thanks for supporting me man - the reason I bought a MIVEC in the end is I wanted exactly what Honda offered (ie allmotor), but I wanted something a bit unique...too many Intergras and Civics when I was shopping around.

    Still can't beat the EF SiR though - best thing Honda ever did in the 80s (with the City Turbo II coming a close second)
    What the MIVEC?

  16. #41
    hmm lets put it like this.......
    VTEC=Original=always the best!!
    Mivec=cheap parallel importing knock off sold at a warehouse or at a k-mart near you!! :wink:

  17. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Accord_SiR
    Mitsubishi are shit cars. Their MIVEC does not have a high power output figure higher than those came out from VTEC. Read my lips...All Mitsubishi MIVEC suck. I have the Japanese video magazine Best Motoring to prove this. The 1.8 litre Integra Type-R (96 spec) beat the shit out of the white colour 96 FTO R type who had a 2.0 V6 twin cam MIVEC on board. What a shame, with two extra bangers and extra 0.2 litre capacity still can't beat a 4 banger? Handling of the FTO is a disappointment to compared to Type-Rs.

    MIVEC is good? Then how come MIVEC is not onboard of any turbo charged cars like GTO, Lancer EVOs and Galant VR-4s??? The only way Mitsubishi can squeeze their power is by means of a turbo, their MIVEC can do shit. Speaking about Lancer EVOs. The engine is an old crap (from the 70s) and it has been there from EVO 1 to 7. What a shame, Mitsubishi can't make a better engine?

    The fact that Honda had become the 2nd largest Japanese car maker, beating Nissan said it all. Honda is better than Mitsubishi in terms of built quality. At least Honda had not been involved in several cover ups, like Mitsubishi in Europe.

    If a turbo is fit on to our VTECs, then it would sure beat the hell out of the EVOs. Not that Honda cannot manufacture a turbo charged cars like Supra or EVOs, Honda just don't want to. Firstly, because turbo suck up plenty of gas, secondly, turbo cars doesn't benefit the environment (Honda's policy is to reduce emission), Thirdly, turbo engines are less durable than NA engines.
    Looks like you did the talkin' for me Accord_SiR
    93 DC2 14.2 @ 155.70km/h

  18. #43
    LUC1D
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mivec Suck
    Quote Originally Posted by Accord_SiR
    Mitsubishi are shit cars. Their MIVEC does not have a high power output figure higher than those came out from VTEC. Read my lips...All Mitsubishi MIVEC suck. I have the Japanese video magazine Best Motoring to prove this. The 1.8 litre Integra Type-R (96 spec) beat the shit out of the white colour 96 FTO R type who had a 2.0 V6 twin cam MIVEC on board. What a shame, with two extra bangers and extra 0.2 litre capacity still can't beat a 4 banger? Handling of the FTO is a disappointment to compared to Type-Rs.

    MIVEC is good? Then how come MIVEC is not onboard of any turbo charged cars like GTO, Lancer EVOs and Galant VR-4s??? The only way Mitsubishi can squeeze their power is by means of a turbo, their MIVEC can do shit. Speaking about Lancer EVOs. The engine is an old crap (from the 70s) and it has been there from EVO 1 to 7. What a shame, Mitsubishi can't make a better engine?

    The fact that Honda had become the 2nd largest Japanese car maker, beating Nissan said it all. Honda is better than Mitsubishi in terms of built quality. At least Honda had not been involved in several cover ups, like Mitsubishi in Europe.

    If a turbo is fit on to our VTECs, then it would sure beat the hell out of the EVOs. Not that Honda cannot manufacture a turbo charged cars like Supra or EVOs, Honda just don't want to. Firstly, because turbo suck up plenty of gas, secondly, turbo cars doesn't benefit the environment (Honda's policy is to reduce emission), Thirdly, turbo engines are less durable than NA engines.
    Looks like you did the talkin' for me Accord_SiR
    i dunno? but diddo. :wink:

  19. #44
    LUC1D
    Guest
    nah thats a cheap way to right a post. love ur name, but a name isnt everything..

    unless ur name is ernest.

  20. #45
    [quote="Disinfo"]Accord SiR: How can you possibly say the Evo engines are shitty? Do they produce more power/torque than an H22a?

    The DOHC VTEC in the NSX has been around for many years now with only fairly minor changes - can't Honda build a better engine? Man they must suck
    quote]

    Disinfo, yes my H22A doesn't produce as much power as the EVO's 4G63. But you need to think of this separately. With a turbo, there is no secret to the horsepower boost. Any engine with a turbo charger will have more power. Then again, the H22A was not made turbo charged by Honda. If Honda were to use turbo on the H22A, I am pretty sure the H22A will fly like a rocket too, probably produce more power than a 4G63.

    The NSX's C30A has only been 12 years old. In between, Honda had revised the engine, that's why we have the C32B DOHC VTEC and with LEV certification.

    Disinfo, Honda's engine is one of the best engine around.

    Simon K, thanks for the info. Don't have time to reply your message though sorry. Yes, i agreed with some of your view points though.

    DamNie, I also don't have the time to reply your message, sorry. So I will make it short. Well I am a bit skeptical about your claim that MIVECs are not there to conquer. It compares head on with the VTECs from Mirage and Civic to FTO and Integra. Also, Nissan's NEO-VVL on Pulsar VZ-R with Civic Type-R (EK9). They looked like a screamer to me though.

    The 80s Honda are rusty, yes, since I have one too, the CA3 Accord Si. But they are not the only rusty cars around. Mitsubishi, Toyota, Nissan and Mazda they were all rusty cars in the 80s. The CA3 Accord 2.0Si that I have were at the time a wonderful car which had 160ps@6300rpm of power and 19kgm of torque produced by the B20A DOHC engine. There were not many cars around at that time can compared with this engine.

    However, I am quite positive with Mitsubishi's GDI technology though.

  21. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Qc
    Pdu-NZ:
    I'm not a Fan of MIVEC at all but my workmate has a Mitsi Lancer Mivec and it does go hard but it didnt beat my VTEC (In a controlled situation)...
    I am a fan of VTEC but..iisnt ur VTEC a 2.2 and the lancer being 1.6?..

    and i heard mitsi cars are tend to be heavier than hondas, hence the extra ponnies quoted probably dont help much..
    At the end of the day it's all power to weight ratio :wink:
    93 DC2 14.2 @ 155.70km/h

  22. #47
    LUC1D
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark XSI
    i did a bit of research on this a while back and it is claimed in an article that the little 1.6 litre Mirage Cyborg R produces 129kw.. thats quite a neat figure for an engine of that size and without a turbo, so MIVEC must be quite efficient power-wise.
    But here is a link with comparisons between the Mirage Cyborg ZR, Civic SiR, Lancer MR, Trueno BZG: http://asia.vtec.net/side/cyborg/
    when i view the page, you got to select the text with the cursor in order to see it, which is damn strange, but that just might be my browser..
    quite right. thats y i feel that at red lights the MIVECs have the advantage because in 50km/h zones the VTECs cant get into their high end, so because the cyborg has a superior power-to-weight ratio, they have the VTEC on the launch..

    lets admit it...the launch is wat every1 looks at and the reaction off the line. 8)

  23. #48
    8,000rpm (B Series Redline!) Lith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,331
    Location
    Lower Hutt
    I agree with a lot of these points...and not with some of them.

    I feel like crap and can't be bothered writing a speel, so I'll just make observations I have seen in real genuine controlled conditions.

    1) Stock for stock, Mirage Cyborg R vs. SiR Civic, Civic is over .2s faster average down the 1/4 which is quite significant

    2) Stock for stock, I have seen a Cyborg R put out 94kW @ wheels vs. a SiR put out 101kW @ wheels on an International dynometers dyno.

    3) In the same form, I have driven both - and the MIVEC 1.6 is undoubtedly torquier at lower revs than the B16A, and is probably likely to be better traffic light to traffic light...

    4) MIVECs are disadvantaged by a much smaller aftermarket following, so its easy to make VTECs go hard just for the amount of availability of "toys". VTECs are also much more common.

    5) They are basically the same technology ;P

    6) MIVECs had an engineering fault, which I can't remember off the top of my head exactly - but I think it was something to do with the MIVEC solenoid failing too easily

    7) Bartman (NZMMC) has run a faster time unstripped/no slicks than any equivalently modded B16A powered car that I know of.... except maybe [KERFUF] tho I don't know if that was stripped (low 14s)

    8) ^^^^ Seems to be also the only MIVEC I know of in the 14s :wink:

    9) Mitsubishis claim of 130kW +/- is shit! But they are still comparable with a B16A, as opposed to a B18C.... which makes them pretty even in the same class.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basically... I could go on forever, so personal choice is what should decide MIVEC vs. VTEC. I go for VTEC because I have always have a soft spot for it, there is much more aftermarket support, as well as from Honda themselves (more than just a 1.6, 2l, and 3.5l)...

    My unbiased 2c

  24. #49
    Exclusive Member pxpx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    6,064
    Location
    Auckland
    While the mivec is a very cool engine (i have to say this cuz dj damnation is next to me..) I'll take this oppurtunity to blab on about something I read in the latest MOTOR magazine (the one with the nsx vs porsche)

    Somewhere in the issue, it has a little article on BMEP. Now i've forgotten what this means, but it's basically the effective pressure on the top of the piston at the time of combustion. (combustion efficiency or sommat.)

    Now it had a list of about 16 different N/A engines/cars.. at the top of the list. F20C Honda S2000 with a number like 10.17 (higher the better)

    Most of your favourite cars are in the list with BMEP values of 9 an under.. including... Ferrari / Lamborghini / HSV etc etc none of them close to the mighty F20C


    I'll scan the list when i get home and put it up on this.. wr3ck0gn1ze haha

    bang.

  25. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Accord_SiR
    Mitsubishi are shit cars
    i disagree!!! VR4's are good... but mivec? nope.. :twisted:

    and to say that a turbo on a vtec would beat a mitsi turbo??
    nope.. vtec and turbo dont really belong together i reckon....
    ***chosen few car club 2002***
    http://www.chosenfew.co.nz

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
NZHondas.com
Disclaimer: The New Zealand Honda Club is not affiliated with Honda New Zealand in any way.