hunterUnknown

iTrader: (1)

and cargo space!

hunterUnknown

iTrader: (1)

firstly, its not heavy. especially compared to our cars.

secondly, vtec is a pretty nice feature. if you have a dislike for it, you are openly proclaiming your ignorance and prejudice from the bandwagon.

the seats were quite supportive and sporty. almost aftermarket really. the wheel was very responsive. the gears were nice. shifter and clutch were light. sound system was lame. rear room is lacking. suspension is one of the best. great balance. engine response is nice. it doesnt FEEL fast, but it is. that "low" torque hits early and holds through the rpms. so just because the # isnt high to begin with, doesnt mean its bad. the engine also is really, really nice.

basically, you're paying for a nicer car, minus the sound system and room.

hotbox05

oh i know vtec. i hate all lift motors.

i hate the rev it to hell to get any power from it.

trust me i;ve worked on crap arsed honduhs for many years before i did toyota's.

motorswaps , turbo's , TRUST.
lemme go look up how much a s2k weighs.

ok here's google to the rescue . google link http://www.google.com/search?q=curb+...en-US:official

2835. curb weight.

old honduhs weigh a lot less and sucked without enough torque to me.

these things aren't heavy but for a honduh they are. and if you're comparing it;s weight to teh tc's . yeah the tc is a PIG and a half. no cheap fwd car should weigh that much but the tc does.

imo honduhs are good for one or two things. basically both involve older smaller cars with motorswaps and forced induction.

engine is ok. shifter is very nice . very nick nick .

even the newer s2k's with the higher displacement less rpms more torque to me is not enough for the car. the older ones with even less torque even less so.

hunterUnknown

iTrader: (1)

i was talking about rsx-s. my mistake!

cfusionpm

god forbid we have all those standard power options, A/C, sound deadening material, and a power panorama sunroof and STILL weigh ONLY 2900 lbs (which is actually pretty light by today's standards).

hunterUnknown

iTrader: (1)

though, your problem with s2k is that you dont have the power off the line of other high torque cars. then again, honda never claims to have off the line power. that car is a monster on the track. not at the drag strip.

cfusionpm

that was the only thing i was kind of meh about. you cant just put your foot down and go, you really have to be in the right rev range to really take off. but they give you a fantastic close ratio 6 speed to play with; its just that unlike bigger displacement cars, the s2000 actually expects you to use it.

hotbox05

2900 light? for a cheap small , 2 door ? no . not in my book. 2700 yeah i'd give you that . 2900? nah.

no my problem with honda is i don't like lift motors and they choose to employ them . and not just make a lift motor but make lift motors with hardly any power until you hit lift. 2zz is the same way.


the new generation of valve timing and valve lift adjustement is gradual power while still getting the same if not better top end as a plain jane lift motor with no torque and little to no mid range.

tC9o9

i would choose a rsx-s over the tc anyday... well thats not completely true, i would choose an rsx-s engine and tranny over the tC's engine and tranny any day.


now if i can afford it, which one day i shall do.. i would love to have a K20 with a comptech supercharger IN a tC.

im sure the swap wouldnt be that hard, since the engine is a little smaller than the tC's and im sure it would fit with a little bit of fabrication.

i think in terms of comfort, dash layout, and overall looks i like the tC more, im saying that because my sister has an rsx so i know a little bit about them, and i would choose the tC anyday.

the only reason that i am in love with the k20 found in the rsx-s is because of its high revving 8.5k redlinin engine, and six speed tranny.

hotbox05

as much as i hate honda and such I like the rsx-s. i really do. good times. stock it'd probably be unsatisfying for me but modded ones that i've driven. oodles of noodles like fun!

hotbox05

YUCK . don;t cross brand motorswap . c-mon man.


do a 3sgte swap in that tc. up to 1000 hp. up to 600 daily.

s0opa_tC

i got spanked by a tC couple of days ago....its was a pretty sight

cfusionpm

a cheap, small 2-door with power everything, a glass roof, and more standard options than you can shake a stick at.

exactly. fuel economy in the low revs for daily driving, and power in the high revs for fun. other than 1st gear (which is usually really short anyway), if you shift at redline, you never fall out of vtec in any of the vtec hondas i've driven. i dont know if you are aware, but many people like to drive their cars every day, and dont like mid teens MPG because their car is always in "omg sports high hp" mode.

rockbrawler884

I voted tC... i think RSX in general has a cramped interior!

tC9o9

would a 3sgte engine even fit? isnt that rwd? i want a swap with a minimal amount of fabrication to the drivetrain

hotbox05

3sgt was originally fwd. then awd while still transversely mounted then employed longitudinally for rwd duty in altezza

probably would fit yes.

hotbox05

no sir . the new generation of lift and so forth give you gradual power . like plain old boring vvti it increses hp and torque throughout the entire powerband.


vtec isn't what kills mpg it's the high revving associated with it.

cfusionpm

nowhere does it say that you have to rev. keep it at low revs, and you stay in the econo-cams. its not the engineer's fault if you have a lead foot.

hotbox05

i understand what i'm saying is . with a vtec motor it's either dead as a dog or screaming down the road. no middle of the road.

c-mon man stick with me.

a complete dog untill about 4k then it snaps to life there is no gradual power rise. it has a very sharp , very late powerband.

i like more linear power but that's just me.

hunterUnknown

iTrader: (1)

well, then its a good thing they're geared to stay in vtec with aggressive driving.