running cost for vetc

Kingser

any knows how much it is to run a 1.6 type r (civic)or integra 1.8type r..I'm 22 full licence living in navan doing 60miles a day1? anyone in a similar position???

Stephen

Insurance is going to be a killer there - probably far more than you'd spend on fuel for the year. Have you got much of a no-claims bonus? How long have you had your full licence etc? I think the ITR is a 1.8 also.

Kingser

3years no claims.. fuel cost is t important part

Kali

Fuel isn't that much of a killer with vtecs if you're driving normally... you'll be well over the 30mpg mark.

Omcd

VTecs are much more enconomical than a Turbo, and probably as good as an ordinary 1.8, so long as you dont drive the cr€p out of it. Much more driveable as well in terms of you can drive it at any almost any speed in almost any gear, which great for when the traffic is speeding up and slowing down all the time you're not having to go up and down the gears so much to keep it happy. But I think, particularily at your age on such an engine, you'll find most insurance companies will tell you to f off:(.

JHMEG

'00 Civic VTI, get 37mpg with a light foot on a journey.

'91 Integra XSI (same engine), 32mpg on the same journey. The Integra had a very close ratio gearbox tho, meaning 120km/h was at 4800rpm in 5th gear.

Jimbo

60 miles a day in a Type R would be pretty uncomfortable Id imagine. Maybe Im just getting old. Running costs aren't that much higher than a standard car as long as you dont hit the vtec too often

bitemybanger

I drive a 106 GTI and i cant see the Honda being much different on fuel consumption, I used to do 50-60 miles a day and it cost 75euro a week but thats normal driving, put your foot down a couple of times and add at least another 15-25 quid

Omcd

jimbo78 wrote: »

60 miles a day in a Type R would be pretty uncomfortable Id imagine.

You can get Integras with much the same engine as a Type R, but spec'ed out more with comfort in mind, if you could get around the huge insurance obstacle maybe one of those might be a good compromise - if you're not specifically trying to acquire a type R badge that is (which can be just stuck on anyway) - the boy racers will probably tell you the more comfort spec it has then the slower it might go, but if you're travelling a distance every day and you're worried about fuel enconomy then maybe you don't need something stripped down to make it go faster - anything with that engine will go fast enough.

bazz26

If fuel costs are very important then your not going to really enjoy owning a Type R.

Like any car if you have a heavy right foot it will drink fuel.

Automan

Omcd wrote: »

You can get Integras with much the same engine as a Type R, but spec'ed out more with comfort in mind, if you could get around the huge insurance obstacle maybe one of those might be a good compromise - if you're not specifically trying to acquire a type R badge that is (which can be just stuck on anyway) - the boy racers will probably tell you the more comfort spec it has then the slower it might go, but if you're travelling a distance every day and you're worried about fuel enconomy then maybe you don't need something stripped down to make it go faster - anything with that engine will go fast enough.

Integra SI, SIR models.
I have the SI and am very happy with it, get just over 30MPG and comfortable, almost the same engine that is in the type r, so not a big difference in straight line speed, obviously the type r corners better.
Insurance is a lot cheaper on the SI im paying 460 full comp (Im over 30), id be paying 850 full comp on a type r.

JHMEG

Automan wrote: »

Integra SI, SIR models.

Si (round lights) and SiR-G (rectangular lights) to be exact

ITR engine is quite a bit more powerful: 20bhp for euro model and 30bhp for the JDM model. ITR is also a bit lighter.

@Automan, what rpm are you at when doing 120km/h in 5th?

Gumbo

Omcd wrote: »

You can get Integras with much the same engine as a Type R, but spec'ed out more with comfort in mind, if you could get around the huge insurance obstacle maybe one of those might be a good compromise - if you're not specifically trying to acquire a type R badge that is (which can be just stuck on anyway) - the boy racers will probably tell you the more comfort spec it has then the slower it might go, but if you're travelling a distance every day and you're worried about fuel enconomy then maybe you don't need something stripped down to make it go faster - anything with that engine will go fast enough.

no other teg in the family compares to the ITR in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkV1_ULC-_4

i had a 1997 model for over 2 years and it as probably the best car i have ever oned in regards to cost, economy and fun

commuted to my job every day and also out on site visits without any problems too. i say if you can afford one, get one.

try go for 1998 or newer, bigger brakes, nicer wheels, abs standard, airbags standard, and xenon lights standard.

Steve

with any Vtec car it'll be hard to keep a light left foot - I'm not driving a teg but I've a 2.0 mivec and it's hard to restrain from showing joe average in his 320i what a "real" engine can do - unfortunately this costs more in petrol but WTF, if you buy a vtec then its not like you expect the economy..
Live with the extra tenner a week and enjoy life a bit - thats my opinion.

(warning - low bridge ahead, no high horses)

JHMEG

Good vid there kceire. I'm surprised after what you say that you went over to the dark side.;)

Forget the radio in the mornings and pull out of the driveway listening to this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-bT_5fR3kg

..and that's just leaving the estate..

Automan

JHMEG wrote: »

Si (round lights) and SiR-G (rectangular lights) to be exact

ITR engine is quite a bit more powerful: 20bhp for euro model and 30bhp for the JDM model. ITR is also a bit lighter.

@Automan, what rpm are you at when doing 120km/h in 5th?

at 120km/h in 5th 3800rpm

SouperComputer

Omcd wrote: »

VTecs are much more enconomical than a Turbo, and probably as good as an ordinary 1.8, so long as you dont drive the cr€p out of it. Much more driveable as well in terms of you can drive it at any almost any speed in almost any gear, which great for when the traffic is speeding up and slowing down all the time you're not having to go up and down the gears so much to keep it happy.

Are you saying this because of somthing you read, assumed or somthing you experienced? Many, smaller turbo petrol engines are much more flexible at the bottom end than a typical VTEC. If you think a VTEC pulls well from low RPM, try a Saab turbo 2nd Gear, 1800RPM and open the throttle...... Different world completely.

Cant speak for economy, its not a concern of mine but VTEC's have never had a rep for flexibility/bottom end torque. Which is fair enough, its not what they are designed for.

JHMEG

Not this again.

A 1.6 vtec will have average torque for a 1.6. Same for the 1.8. Actually they have marginally more than average.

Biro

Between €65 and €90 a week would be about right for petrol. Maybe €100 for the first few weeks!

Gumbo

sorry double post

Gumbo

JHMEG wrote: »

Not this again.

A 1.6 vtec will have average torque for a 1.6. Same for the 1.8. Actually they have marginally more than average.

my ITR had 210bhp and 155 foot pounds of torque, hondas a slagged quite a bit for being torquless, but still great engines imo

5500

I find my DC2 Teg abit crap on juice in comparision to the Vti civic i had before it,the civic did circa 35mpg even with a good blast of vtec,the Teg is nowhere near that even not using Vtec!

The majority of my driving is city driving which i would put down to the crap economy,Still a car id reccomend owning regardless of fuel consumption!

Tea drinker

Hey,
what's the Oil change Interval on the typical VTEC?

Gumbo

Tea drinker wrote: »

Hey,
what's the Oil change Interval on the typical VTEC?

since vtec is all oil pressure based then its in your best intrest to change the oil and oil filter every 4000-5000 miles.

thats what i done in my ITR, didnt have to touch the plugs or air filter as it had irridium plugs and a spoon drop in filter (so that just needed a good cleaning.)

Omcd

SouperComputer wrote: »

Are you saying this because of somthing you read, assumed or somthing you experienced? Many, smaller turbo petrol engines are much more flexible at the bottom end than a typical VTEC. If you think a VTEC pulls well from low RPM, try a Saab turbo 2nd Gear, 1800RPM and open the throttle...... Different world completely.

Cant speak for economy, its not a concern of mine but VTEC's have never had a rep for flexibility/bottom end torque. Which is fair enough, its not what they are designed for.

Experience. I'm talking about driveability in traffic and built up areas, not racing (I'll let the boy racers talk about that). The VTEC I could drive at 25mph in 5th gear and still be able to accelerate without changing down, and I never really needed to come down below 3rd to take a 90 degree corner in a build up area (I should stress at normal safe speed). The turbo was completely different, if there was any incline after taking a corner I sometimes needed to go down to first (that was an Octavia though not a Saab). The Turbo and the VTEC were the same size engine, but the VTEC was giving at least 38mpg average, the turbo about 23. The VTEC also had more power in it (180/190 bhp as opposed to 150bhp), and the Turbo was not given as much 'exercise' as the VTEC. I fact as I hardly ever utilised the Turbo, I came to the conclusion I didn't need it and haven't even thought about buying another one since (that happens when you get older unfortunately:(). The only thing I can say about the Turbo was that it was much much easier on the insurance.

CyberGhost

JHMEG wrote: »

Good vid there kceire. I'm surprised after what you say that you went over to the dark side.;)

Forget the radio in the mornings and pull out of the driveway listening to this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-bT_5fR3kg

..and that's just leaving the estate..

Damn that is FAST!

JHMEG

SouperComputer wrote:

The VTEC I could drive at 25mph in 5th gear

+1, and up hills at that.

Close ratio gearbox put 5th gear somewhere between 3rd and 4th in a regular car tho. Also helps that the cars are not heavy.

what_car

Kingser wrote: »

any knows how much it is to run a 1.6 type r (civic)or integra 1.8type r..I'm 22 full licence living in navan doing 60miles a day1? anyone in a similar position???

my accord type S 2.0 auto 155bhp, gives round 25-28 mpg round town and 45 on a long run. it avgs out at round 33-35mpg per tank full. 65L tank.

i hear people talking about vtec this and vtec that without knowing what it means, i have heard people mention vtec as if its some sort of turbo thing..

here is what the ivtec is....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYvqVXLIT2s

anyways the auto is the business, silky smooth gear changes, take off from a dead stop in a flash, compared to the manual equivelent model..( have tested this) also has a manual function too..

i put on avg 60 euros of petrol into the car every week, and get 600 km of mixed driving......

the first main service at a main dealer was 190 euro so not that expensive..

great car to drive as it has the sports suspension and good tyres and great handling. id say forget bout the Type R why bother?
paying through the nose for insurance.....

SouperComputer

Omcd wrote: »

Experience. I'm talking about driveability in traffic and built up areas, not racing (I'll let the boy racers talk about that). The VTEC I could drive at 25mph in 5th gear and still be able to accelerate without changing down, and I never really needed to come down below 3rd to take a 90 degree corner in a build up area (I should stress at normal safe speed). The turbo was completely different, if there was any incline after taking a corner I sometimes needed to go down to first (that was an Octavia though not a Saab). The Turbo and the VTEC were the same size engine, but the VTEC was giving at least 38mpg average, the turbo about 23. The VTEC also had more power in it (180/190 bhp as opposed to 150bhp), and the Turbo was not given as much 'exercise' as the VTEC. I fact as I hardly ever utilised the Turbo, I came to the conclusion I didn't need it and haven't even thought about buying another one since (that happens when you get older unfortunately:(). The only thing I can say about the Turbo was that it was much much easier on the insurance.

Thats pretty interesting. I was talking about day-to day driving too. My experience is the opposite. Altho an Octiavia is going to be a little heavier and as JHMEG said, the gear ratios are generally a little closer on a given VTEC. Having to go down to first though is very bizaare! The VW 1.8Ts pull fairly well from 2250 upwards, and okayish from 1800, but I have say I've never dragged an octavia/passat around with one. The mid 90's Saabs are great if you ever get a chance to drive one, give it a go.

JHMEG wrote:

Not this again.

A 1.6 vtec will have average torque for a 1.6. Same for the 1.8. Actually they have marginally more than average.

I should probably clarify my comment on torque, yes the PEAK torque is decent with a typical VTEC, the problem is where it sits in the rev range also one of the reasons I dislike many modern Turbo Diesels!

--amadeus--

stevec wrote: »

with any Vtec car it'll be hard to keep a light left foot - I'm not driving a teg but I've a 2.0 mivec and it's hard to restrain from showing joe average in his 320i what a "real" engine can do...

I'm sure everyone in thier BMWs is very impressed at how hard you can press down on your clutch

JHMEG

what_car wrote: »

i hear people talking about vtec this and vtec that without knowing what it means, i have heard people mention vtec as if its some sort of turbo thing..

here is what the ivtec is....

Ironically (speaking of people who don't understand;)), the video you quoted is of the new 1.8 iVTEC, which is a SOHC. All valves are operated by a single camshaft. On the other hand your Accord has a DOHC engine. Intake and exhaust valves are on seperate camshafts. The 1.8 has an economy lobe, (harking back to the JDB D15B in the JDM Civic 'VTI') whereas your Accord does not. The 1.8 has a variable volume induction system, your Accord does not.

They about as different as petrol engines can be! Or at least the valvetrains are.

I owned a 2.0 Accord Coupe (auto) for a while. Very very comfy, not sporty. I also drove the original 2.4 Type-S, 190bhp, bodykit, 6-speed. Very quick and very comfy. Not really a driver's car either.

I also owned a dohc vtec Integra. No comparison. Not comfy. Loud stock induction system. Fantastic driver's car. Super communicative. You could nearly tell the colour of the road surface from the feedback through the steering.

It's really driver's car vs comfy car at the end of the day.

EDIT: The VTEC idea is quite simple:
To get more power you need to burn more fuel (simple idea). You can burn more fuel by either a) larger displacement, b) forced induction creating artifically larger displacement, or c) spinning faster.
Spinning faster, increasing the burn rate, requires more air. This is where VTEC comes in. Open valves wider and for longer at higher rpm and hey presto, more air can get in. So why not do it across the rev range? Look at videos on youtube of cars with Toda VTEC Killers installed (Camshafts that simulate the high cam being constantly activated, ie vtec is always "on"). The cars are not driveable due to wrong mix of air and fuel at low rpm and the fuel economy would be sh1t. Such is the nature of petrol engines.

what_car

JHMEG wrote: »

Ironically (speaking of people who don't understand;)), the video you quoted is of the new 1.8 iVTEC, which is a SOHC. All valves are operated by a single camshaft. On the other hand your Accord has a DOHC engine. Intake and exhaust valves are on seperate camshafts. The 1.8 has an economy lobe, (harking back to the JDB D15B in the JDM Civic 'VTI') whereas your Accord does not. The 1.8 has a variable volume induction system, your Accord does not.

They about as different as petrol engines can be! Or at least the valvetrains are.

I owned a 2.0 Accord Coupe (auto) for a while. Very very comfy, not sporty. I also drove the original 2.4 Type-S, 190bhp, bodykit, 6-speed. Very quick and very comfy. Not really a driver's car either.

I also owned a dohc vtec Integra. No comparison. Not comfy. Loud stock induction system. Fantastic driver's car. Super communicative. You could nearly tell the colour of the road surface from the feedback through the steering.

It's really driver's car vs comfy car at the end of the day.

EDIT: The VTEC idea is quite simple:
To get more power you need to burn more fuel (simple idea). You can burn more fuel by either a) larger displacement, b) forced induction creating artifically larger displacement, or c) spinning faster.
Spinning faster, increasing the burn rate, requires more air. This is where VTEC comes in. Open valves wider and for longer at higher rpm and hey presto, more air can get in. So why not do it across the rev range? Look at videos on youtube of cars with Toda VTEC Killers installed (Camshafts that simulate the high cam being constantly activated, ie vtec is always "on"). The cars are not driveable due to wrong mix of air and fuel at low rpm and the fuel economy would be sh1t. Such is the nature of petrol engines.

woops wrong link.. posted... ill post the one i was looking at when i find it again

what_car

[QUOTE=JHMEG; I also drove the original 2.4 Type-S, 190bhp, bodykit, 6-speed. Very quick and very comfy. Not really a driver's car either.

QUOTE]

can someone tell me what a drivers car is then?

Steve

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I'm sure everyone in thier BMWs is very impressed at how hard you can press down on your clutch

My bad:o
Did you not know that you drive vtechs with your legs crossed...

Atomic Pineapple

my integra tank holds €45 petrol at 1.17c per litre and that gets exactly 200miles of mixed driving, using the vtec quite a bit for overtaking, i drive about 50 miles a day. what a great car to drive it really is the definition of a drivers car

Biro

what_car wrote: »

[QUOTE=JHMEG; I also drove the original 2.4 Type-S, 190bhp, bodykit, 6-speed. Very quick and very comfy. Not really a driver's car either.

QUOTE]

can someone tell me what a drivers car is then?

In some ways that's like saying "Can someone tell me what a good opera is".
If you don't know, you'll never know really. Some people just don't get the whole concept and feel of an involving chassis or steering feed back. People have opinions on what they like to drive, and that's fine, but that doesn't make it a good drivers car. It's like music in a way... you might like west life, but that doesn't mean that your taste is dictating what's good and what's not. You might be shown a good opera by music critics, but that doesn't mean you'll like it.

--amadeus--

Couldn't agree more in lots of ways. Two people might disagree totally over what is a good drivers car - I might argue that anything with FWD for example isn't a true drivers car (possible torque steer and dulling of steering feedback vs RWD) and others would point to something like the 205GTi (or some of teh Jap cars) as examples of cars that can feel good and still be FWD.

But I think that there are general things that all "drivers cars" have that set them out from "ordinary" cars

- Better power to weight ratio. Drivers car's aren't all about power. Look at the Lotus Elise, but a good power to weight ratio is essential to give good performance

- Good roadholding. Generally this will mean a stiffer suspension than a standard car and allows the driver to take corners with less body roll

- Communication. This is linked to roadholding and suspension but is a lot more. You want to feel what the car is doing and be able to sense through your hands on teh wheel and your bum on the seat exactly how much grip each tyre has. Drive a really communicative car (non power steering fitted RWD will qualify, Mazda MX5, Lotus Elise that sort of thing) and you'll be amazed at the amount of feedback you get.

- Focus. Less important but a drivers car is usually designed as such. As a result it often is less comfortable or les practical than it's stablemates. Usually the more single minded a company have been on making a drivers car the worse it is at everything else and the better it is on the road. Compare an MX5 to a BMW 3 series Coupe. On the surface both are sports cars but the MX5 is built to feel good on teh road wheras the BM has to be comfrortable on motorways, hold 4 adults, have luggage space, have a certain amount of toys, etc. Which do you think is the better drivers car?

I would argue that there is also an "X Factor" to it - good drivers cars make you want to get in and drive, take the long way home and leave you getting out with a big grin. They make you look out your bedroom window last thing at night and smile at them in a way that a Micra never will!

Atomic Pineapple

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I would argue that there is also an "X Factor" to it - good drivers cars make you want to get in and drive, take the long way home and leave you getting out with a big grin. They make you look out your bedroom window last thing at night and smile at them in a way that a Micra never will!

Definatly!

I share a lift to college and we alternate who drives on different days, currently sitting in college wishing I had brought my car so i could enjoy the drive home, I feel like this everytime I get a lift

JHMEG

There's no real definition for what a driver's car is. In my opinion it is one that alomost overloads the drivers senses with feedback. A car where you can feel everything. Not necessarily good grip or anything else like that.

The Integra does the above, as well has having massive grip, great engine, great body control etc, predictable handling. It puts a lot of RWD cars to shame.

Biro wrote:

In some ways that's like saying "Can someone tell me what a good opera is".
If you don't know, you'll never know really.

Not true. You might just never have been. And when you've been, you'll know;)

Biro

Funny thing about grip in line with handling... while grip is important, the guy in Mazda who was designing the new MX5 wanted it to have no more grip than the old one. It works, the new one is absolutely fantastic to drive on a track, you just feel everything. If it had more grip, it may feel a bit too safe until you over stepped the mark, which would be at a higher speed, therefore taking away some of the whole feel of the car and excitement of it.

Green Hornet

I had an Accord 1.8 VTec and on an 80 mile round trip the car was giving 37 mpg. Now have a new Civic saloon 1.8 iVTec and the mpg is actually 42 mpg on the same trip. Those figures are measured from the pump, the computer is a big liar, trying to tell me I'm getting 45 mpg:rolleyes:.

The VTec really needed to be in the higher rev range (>4000 rpm) to achieve reasonable power and was sluggish in the lower rev range.

However, the newer iVTec is much smoother throughout the range. I've been informed that "power" mode is the "normal" mode in the iVTec whereas it was the other way around in the VTec engines. I'm far from an expert so I'm not sure if thats true but there is definitely a big difference between the VTec and iVTec.

Must say though that I think a lot of people do assume that VTec is some super duper boost that you will experience at 4000 rpm and will blow your head off. Thats not true. Sure there is a little boost but I think people overplay the effect.

Honda NEVER break down though.;)

Steve

My 11 year old 2.0L Vtec has roughly the same HP as a new '08 Audi TT 2.0T, and is 100kg lighter.
Somehow I can't justify the extra €40K for the TT..

JHMEG

stevec wrote: »

My 11 year old 2.0L Vtec has roughly the same HP as a new '08 Audi TT 2.0T, and is 100kg lighter.

1997, 200bhp 2.0L... what car is that?

Steve

JHMEG wrote: »

1997, 200bhp 2.0L... what car is that?

FTO GPX

Kingser

well people in t end i got a Civic wit a FULL K20 CONVERSION FROM EP3!! Its going to take few weeks but it'll be worth it!!!:D:D:D.
insurance will be for EP3 also t same for tax! mpg35+ i'm told.
Cheers for all the help!!:)any comments about these K20 Conversions will come in handy!!

JHMEG

stevec wrote: »

FTO GPX

A VTEC FTO.. that's a new one!

Steve

JHMEG wrote: »

A VTEC FTO.. that's a new one!

Same sh1t inside, different make.
Do you have a hoover or a vacuum cleaner?