I always thought toyota's vtec was dumb.Looneybomber wrote:
On a side note, that vtec seems nearly useless. Kicks in at 6.5k and redlines at 8k? Shift and you're out of vtec. Bleh. They should have taken some notes from Honda.
Aww, that sucks.cmfireman wrote:Read the comments. The gauges changing color is done by editing just to show where vvti-l kicks in.
Yeah it sounds like a good idea, but I am a bit partial to my S's vtec engagement. It's always there when I need it and never when I don't. If everytime I upshifted I came out of vtec, my car would suck.Eikon wrote:Toyota's vvt-i is supposed to be better technology. It's supposed to be able to kick over at any time based on the ECU's determination of when the driver wants full throttle and when the engine is primed to do so.
In theory.. it's a better design. In practice.. it's not nearly as strong. Perhaps toyota's varaible lobe on the cam is much less aggresive than Honda's? Honda sure feels stronger when it kicks in.
Same here man.Looneybomber wrote: If everytime I upshifted I came out of vtec, my car would suck.
The s2k's VTEC gives it an instant 15-20ft.lbs of TQ. It's not much, but it can be felt. I just consider it a means of helping my gasmilage in the lower RPMs and a way of helping the engine breathe in the upper RPMs, because, that's what it's for! B-E-A-Utiful torque curve!kamikazestorm420 wrote:toyotas vvtl-i is a weird thing. my friends celica (in this case, the same engine as the matrix xrs) has like 3 setps to it. from idle to 4000rpm its normal, from 4k-6500rpm it adjusts valve timing, and from 6500-8000 it adjusts valve lift. im not sure if you have been in a 2zz before but it feels a lot stronger when you hit lift. keyword is "feel". obviously its not as fast as a s2k but it feels stronger than s2k's vtec. but yes, his car is slow as hell until he hits lift.
*sigh* bench racers.lrb_2000 wrote:200hp 140tq lols
I drove a few friends s2k's.. they have no balls. even in "vtec".. it's sad that you have to have it at 6500rpms for anything to happen...
But this is comparing it to the tq of a KA-T... which still makes more TQ stock than a s2k
sunnys14 wrote:he said more TQ "stock" than a s2k. please read closely.
Engine of which he is comparing with a stock s2k.lrb_2000 wrote:But this is comparing it to the tq of a KA-T.
Superfulous information since it has no relevance to the subject, which is the KA-T.lrb_2000 wrote:...which still makes more TQ stock than a s2k