Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online! Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online!
Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online! 
-
Latest | 0 Rplys
Go Back   Automotive Forums .com Car Chat > Engineering/Technical
Engineering/Technical Ask technical questions about cars. Do you know how a car engine works?
Reply Show Printable Version Show Printable Version | Email this Page Email this Page | Subscription Subscribe to this Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-23-2003, 02:05 AM   #16
civic1784
AF Enthusiast
 
civic1784's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Plymouth, Massachusetts
Posts: 210
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Another thing to consider:

247hp / 2L = 123.5hp/L
195hp / 1.8L = 108.33

Basically by having a larger engine, even more air can be packed into the cylinder as it is, simply due to more space. If you chose a 1.8 L turbo engine that was a factory turbo that got equal gas mileage, you could assume that the numbers would be closer together, although the turbo numbers will still be higher.
__________________
'91 Honda Civic Hatch
Pewter Gray Metallic
Civic4g
civic1784 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2003, 02:31 AM   #17
Moppie
Master Connector
 
Moppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Auckland
Posts: 11,781
Thanks: 95
Thanked 101 Times in 80 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to Moppie Send a message via AIM to Moppie Send a message via Yahoo to Moppie
The temple of VTEC article is pretty good, and does a good job of explianing how VTEC works.
Its a little biased, and its comparison with a Turbo powered engine a little incorrect, however given the age of the article is quite accpetable.

I would just like to add a few things.


Honda has had a history in formula one that is 2nd only to that of Ferrari.

Honda has produced several Turbo models during the 80s, all of which were only sold in Japan, but were all very reliable very fast, and several years ahead of what other Japanese manufactors were able to do at the time.
They included turbo versions of the: CRX, the City (the most famous) and V6 Accord. However when Turbo Charging was dropped from F1, Honda also dropped it from its road cars.
Crysler has been putting Turbos on plenty of engines, but always with the help of Mitsubishi, who are currently considered world leaders in the field, along with Porsche.
SAAB used to be a world leader, but has developed very little new turbo related technology in the last 15 years, and now only produces very low pressure Turbo engines.


Fuel economy is a measure of how much fuel a car or engine uses.
This is dependant on a very large number of variables, including the driver, weight and areodynamic efficancy of the car.
If you removed these variables then you are left with the cubic capcity of the engine, and how efficantly the combustion chamber is which effects how much fuel is needed to burn in a given amount of air.
But essentialy the more air you have the more fuel you will need to add to it to make it burn. Since a turbo charged engine by its very design forces more air into the combustion chamber all other things being equal it will require more fuel to burn the air, and so be less fuel efficant.
In real life this means a smaller engine can be used to create as much power and move a given car just as fast a larger less efficant engine. The result maybe a car that is actualy more fuel efficant, depsite the inefficany of the engine.



And the most important part.

The great design inovation in VTEC is not the ablity to use more than once cam profile to provide power and torque at both high and low RPM, and thus have an egine with a very high spefic output that is also friendly and easy to drive at low rpm.
The technology required to change the cam profile has been around almost since the invention of the camshaft, what was lacking was a cylinder head design and engine management system capable of dealing with it.
Air flows at differnt rates through differnt sized holes (inlet and exhaust ports) meaning an engines power curve is dictated by its cam profile and cylinder head and manifold design, as well as the ablity of the engine managment system to deliver fuel and alter ignition timing.
Its no good altering the cam profile if the cylinder head and manifolds are unable to deliver and remove air efficantly at both high and low rpm, and the carbs or fuel injection system are unable to deal with the radical change in fuel requirments etc etc.

What Honda did that is so brilliant, and has yet to be copyed succefuly by any other manufactor (except maybe Porsche and Ferrari) was to design a cylinder head and engine mangement that was able to cope with a radical change in cam profile, and so create an engine that was capable of a high spefic hp, but also have a long flat power curve, and make useable amounts of power and torque at both high and low rpm.
This technology came almost directly from F1 where the problem has alway been designing an engine with as much hp as possible, but also as flater torque curve as possible.
The cylinder head and ECU technology devloped by honda and tested on thier F1 engines was then applied to an existing variable cam profile technology that Honda had been useing on thier bike engines since the mid 80s to create the now famous B16a DOHC VTEC engine in the SiR Civic/CRX and XSi/RSi integra, and the 3.0 V6 engine in the NSX.


Mitsubishi were the first to copy Honda VTEC, and developed MIVEC(sp) appling to both 4cyl and 6cyl engines. However they lacked Hondas ablity to design cylinder heads, and the Mitsi engines are very peaky and inefficant when compared to the Honda engines. They were also made in much smaller numbers, and only used on low production performance models, which always had a non MIVEC variant avliable.
(in 92 Honda made VTEC avliable accross thier intier model range, and used non VTEC engines only in base model cars.)

Nissan were the next to copy VTEC with thier SR20/16 based VVTL engines. Although they made as much or more spefic hp than the equivlant B series Honda engines, they like the Mitsi engines were very peaky and lacked the smooth power delivery of the Honda engines. All becasue they lacked the cylinder head design developed by honda.
(the top VVTL engine, the SR16ve makes a claimed 200ps at about 8,000rpm. thats 15ps more than the B16b. However the SR16ve has an idle speed of 2,000rpm which is far to high for a road car. The B16b however still idles at 700rpm and even when tweaked with a set of cams to 200+hp still maintians a 700prm idle and a nice flat power curve)
And like the Mitsi MIVEC engines, the VVTL engines only sold in Japan, and only fitted to low production models, which all have an alternative non VVTL engine avliable. (except a version of the Primera Wgaon which also had a CVT g/box, a rather odd combination as its a sort of automotive contridiction)


Toyota have been latest to develop a variable cam profile system, called VVTi-L it is so far only avliable on the Celica GTS, and the Corrola GT sold in Japan. The engine has been heavily critised for being to peaky, with the change in profile occuring so high up in the RPM range that the car drops out of its limited power curve far to easily.
Again it misses out on the advanced cylinder design used by Honda.


But this will of course change, and some form of variable cam timing, or more than one profile is becoming more and more popular on new car models. Its is only a matter of time before the above listed manufactors and others develop cylinder head designs that allow them to exploit it as well as Honda does.
__________________
Connecting the Auto Enthusiasts

Last edited by Moppie; 02-23-2003 at 03:01 AM.
Moppie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2003, 11:57 AM   #18
BigJustinZ28
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 422
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
wow , i didnt understand vtech until now . It seems like a rather smart way to add economy without much or any cost in performance. But... i think ill stick with v8's (cept maybe a buick turbocharged 6 cylinder for my trans am muahaha that would be sick !!!). Now if only you could get people to stop putting vtech stickers on pre 89 cars lol Ive seen alot of like 87 honda's with vtech stickers and the motors were not vtech. (I kid you not Ive seen a Mustang Type R (not cobra r but "Type R") before as well LOL !!! all it needed was a vtech sticker!!!) . This article was good however as now I understand why if I had an accord or integra , why I'd get the vtech one .
__________________
1984 Z28 = 305 HO w/ 700R4
flowmaster , k&n filter , B&M Megashifter
91-92 z28 dress w/ 94 z28 wheels


1997 Camaro Z28 = LT1 w/ LT4 Conversion w/ Hot Cam
52mm T/B , SLP CAI , SLP Shorties .Eibach Springs, KYB GA Shocks.
SS Hood , Suncoast Creations Spoiler , F1 Camaro Wheels.
30th Ann. Style White with Orange Stripes.
BigJustinZ28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2003, 06:49 AM   #19
manolis8
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
An infinite VTEC

At www.pattakon.com a new Continuously Variable Valve Actuation system is presented, with working prototype photos, plots and animations (even stereoscopic ones).
Any engine, racing or normal, can be improved as the torque can be about constant from very low revs to the top allowable revs of the engine.

Comments? Objections?
manolis8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2003, 03:43 PM   #20
Holyterror
AF Enthusiast
 
Holyterror's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 274
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think the VVA system referred to above deserves its own thread, so I'll try to keep to the original topic. It's an interesting idea, and I'd love to see what some of the tech guys around here think of it. Anyway, back to VTEC:

The advantages are obvious. I don't think we really need to try to list them because Honda and every "specific output freak" in the world has already written a dissertation on it. And yes, any presumed slight against turbocharging (unfair comparisons apply) is going to get my immediate attention. So here I go.

It's been said several times in this thread that speed is all we care about. Mileage and driveability mean nothing. Well, I'm continuing down that path. Disadvantages of VTEC for maximum performance:
  1. Extra valvetrain mass (weight)
    This is pretty self-explanatory. Lightening the valvetrain generally makes it last longer, frees up power, heightens the redline, and extends the power curve (allowing you to shift later and stay in the fattest part of the power band).

  2. Added complexity and opportunities for breakdown
    Why do many people abhor the FD3S RX-7? Over-complexity and poor reliability kill an otherwise excellent automobile. In racing, stuff breaks all the time. In short, nobody wants another expensive part that is more likely to break than one of those skinny Honda con rods. This added complexity alss makes the engines more expensive to produce. And though VTEC has been used mainly on four-cylinders, Honda will have to branch out if this technology is actually supposed to replace turbocharging. The NSX, for example, uses a V6. That means double the VTEC components. Since the search for ultimare power almost always leads to bigger engines, the first two VTEC disadvantages are going to get twice as big as larger engines use it in place of turbocharging.

  3. The absolutely useless low RPM profile
    Lert's face it: if you're drag racing, a low-RPM cam profile is pointless. Yes, you can drive it to the track. Yes, it will idle smoothly. But, after that, all you have is a normal drag car with a typical lumpy cam profile, plus the two disadvantages listed above. And so VTEC is much more at home on a daily driver than a high performance machine.

  4. The difficulty of finding aftermarket cams
    This used to be a much bigger deal than it is now, but it still factors in. Initially, aftermarket VTEC cams that worked were impossible to find. Thanks to precision CNC-machining, that has changed. Quality manufacturers can and do make good VTEC cams now, but the selection is still much thinner than for other engines.

That's just off the top of my head. In my opinion, VTEC is not for high-performance automobiles. The same applies to MIVEC, VVL, VVT-i, and any other approximations. And in any realm, it seems to me that there are some easy alternatives. Variable length intake runners and variable backpressure exahust are good examples. Harmonic optimization can give a lot of the same benefits as optimized cam timing. Variable intake manifolds seem to have been thrown to the side, but I still like them. And as far as exhaust, Nissan seems to be ditching variable capacity mufflers; they weren't that impressive anyway. Suzuki has exployed a simple system comprised of a computer-controlled butterfly valve in the exhaust stream to change the effective diameter of the pipe. I have long wanted to see this on a larger engine. My point is, I think there are several viable alternatives to VTEC that do not share in all of its disadvantages and also prove that it is not the greatest thing ever invented.

And the brief on turbochargers: modern ball-bearing turbos coupled with electronic boost control can offer much more flexibility than in the past. But this is not even important if we're still talking maximum performance. At the drag strip, you can simply have a radical cam and a huge turbo, and hiding behind a VTEC sticker will not save anyone.

As usual, I apologize for being long-winded. The good news is: you'll get over it.
__________________
"There are no substitutions for revolutions."

Member of AF's Slide Squad (Member #05)

Last edited by Holyterror; 03-20-2004 at 11:23 PM.
Holyterror is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2003, 09:23 PM   #21
Moppie
Master Connector
 
Moppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Auckland
Posts: 11,781
Thanks: 95
Thanked 101 Times in 80 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to Moppie Send a message via AIM to Moppie Send a message via Yahoo to Moppie
Some nice points Holyterror, unforunatly I think you missed a major one.

When it comes to track raceing, of any kind, then VTEC as you mentioned is an almost complete waste of time. If you really want to go fast, and class rules are not a problem then you simply use the wildest, head, cam, and forced induction set up you can manage to squeeze into the car.
Things like VTEC simply get in the way. In a race car you simply want as much hp and torque as possible over not more than 2-3,000rpm. (maybe 3-4,000 if its a rally car)
Its nice to have a wider power band, but you simply dont need it, and it can be sacrificed in the name of more power.



But:

Quote:
That's just off the top of my head. In my opinion, VTEC is not for high-performance automobiles. The same applies to MIVEC, VVL, VVT-i, and any other approximations.
You seem to think that Variable valve timeing systems have no place in performance cars, this unforunatly is a clearly false claim, based on lack of knowledge.

Porsche, Ferrari and BMW now all use some kind of system that adjusts timing, lift and duration on all thier models. You can not tell me that an M3, or the new Ferrari Enzo is not a performance car.
And of course you seem to not realise that when VTEC was first released on the Market it was in the SiR Civic/CRX, the XSi/RSi Integra, and of course the NSX. All of which are performance cars in thier respective classes. (in 1989-91 the SiR CRX would have been the worlds fastest FWD production car.)
VTEC was devloped from a similar system used on Performance Honda bikes, its application to more family orintated vechiles came much later, and in the case of Mitsi's MIVEC and Nissans Neo VVTL it has only ever been used on performance models.



Quote:
Added complexity and opportunities for breakdown
Relevent only to race cars, and even then doubtful.
Honda has never ever had a warrenty claim based on a failure of the Valve train, or assicaated VTEC compentents. I thrashed the crap out of my SiR Civic for 4 years and it never had a problem with it. I know more ppl than I can count who own or have owned VTEC, MIVEC, or NEO VVTL powered cars, and have driven them hard, and never had a problem.
I also know of an EX Honda Works Group N SiR Civic rally car, that for that past 13 years has run 2-5 full length really events every year, and has never had the engine apart. It's as it was assembled in 1990. The car is making well over 180hp from a B16a (1600cc DOHC VTEC).
You have to remember that the valve train is only running at half the speed of the crank and pistons, and that the parts in it are much smaller and lighter than the engines bottom end. Failures in the valve train are just as rare for a VTEC/MIVEC et al engine as any other.



Quote:
The absolutely useless low RPM profile
As I said above yes, on a race car its not needed, but if your running in a class that limits engine mods, then it is nice to have a race car you can drive home and use during the week. Its the designed purpose of cars like the Type R Civic/Integra, or the N1 Pulsar, or MIVEC Mirage.
And in the case of SOHC VTEC engines, and the new BMW's then it is very useful. Anything that extends an engines power curve makes it easier to drive. Gear changes are minimised, as is response time to throttle imputs. And of course there are huge benifits to efficancy and economy, all of which have been explained in this thread.


Quote:
And in any realm, it seems to me that there are some easy alternatives. Variable length intake runners and variable backpressure exahust are good examples.
These have been proven not to work as a complete alternative to actualy being able to alter the cams profile, and most of them only really work best when they are used in conjunction with some kind of VTEC type system.
Honda Toyota and BMW both use a Variable length inlets combined with altering the cam profile, as do Ferrari and Porsche. It actualy works to increase any gains from altering the cam profile, and I can not think of a single application where only a variable length inlet has been used with out at least altering the cam timing.
Quite simply the gains you can get from useing variable cam profile are signifcantly greater than all the gains from all the alternative systems you mentioned combined.



A Turbo is nice, I drive a Turbo charged vechile on a regular basis, and the increase in torque provided is something that no variable cam profile system could replicate. Unforunatly Turbo charging like variable cam profile systems also its down sides.


The two are simply just differnt ways of altering an engines power curve, and both have differnt applications, depending on what benifits you want, and what disadvantages you can life with.
__________________
Connecting the Auto Enthusiasts
Moppie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2003, 01:37 PM   #22
Chris V
The Big Meaney
 
Chris V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pikesville, Maryland
Posts: 368
Thanks: 1
Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Brilliantly stated, Moppie.

Holyterror has a point, in that a VTEC car with a performance cam grind is no different than a "normal" race 4 cyl with a performance grind, and VTEC itself is no use in a drag race. The car doen'rt win a drag race becasue it has VTEC, but because the particular cam grind used for the high end makes the most power... I mean, a race car shifted p[roperly wouldn't ever be revving low enough to be runing on the lowr rpm cam profile of a VTEc car, any more than a typical old school drag car would be running "off the cam."

But, VTEC ended up being a way of haivng a street car remain driveable when not racing or when not being pushed hard. Those of us who built dual purpose sports cars and drag cars for decades would have loved to have that technology...
__________________
I've owned over a hundred cars in the last 40 years. What was I thinking?


2013 MINI JCW Roadster
2023 Chevy Bolt
Chris V is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2003, 04:39 PM   #23
jeffescortlx
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: private
Posts: 607
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via AIM to jeffescortlx
You can't make power with out gas. (unless your ride is electric).
So I'm with the "who cares about milage group" but a turbo car can be good on gas, as long as you stay off boost, but than again, if you want to go fast you use gas.
__________________
I make slow Escorts less-slow.
My cardomain
jeffescortlx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2003, 11:13 AM   #24
V-8Fan
AF Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 108
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
To say that V-TEC is or is not as effective as a turbo is being too broad and general.

A turbo can overcome design limitations in heads, ports, and combustion chambers and the like. It does what it does.

To say that V-TEC "just lets more air in" in contrast to a turbo which "increases air density" is to be in error. More air = higher air density.

The subject of filling the combustion chamber with air needs to be approached with the concept of fluid dynamics in mind. When air/fuel begins to be sucked into a cylinder, it acquires MOMENTUM. That is why camshaft profiles can allow the intake valve to remain open long after BDC. The piston may be coming back up on the compression stroke, but the air/fuel charge is still rushing into the cylinder because of the momentum it has. In fact, the intake valve can open before the exhaust valve closes to take advantage of the momentum of the burned mixture exiting through the exhaust valve---in this way, the exhaust's momentum is assisting the fuel/air charge on its way in, and this also helps to expel more exhaust gases. There is a lot to consider when it comes to camshafts and valve timing.

I won't deny that turbos are very effective and do the job they are intended to do very well. But, I don't consider it to be a panacea. Turbos are expensive and do not contribute to engine reliability. They are another obstacle under the hood that makes working on an engine more difficult.

The V-TEC concept makes a lot of sense to me!
V-8Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2003, 04:30 PM   #25
peeface
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I know this is late, but Polygon, please refrain from further references to Formula 1 as you obviously know nothing about it.
peeface is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2003, 04:43 AM   #26
titutus
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 152
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Honda's VTEC.

thank you !
__________________
please visit the sites about The calling and Lenny Kravitz
http://www.the-calling-two.com/calli...iI4bQBuG8pvi0I
http://www.lenny-kravitz.net/kravitz...XqG8nQqiCSzQYr
titutus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2003, 04:27 AM   #27
JohnnyWash1
AF Regular
 
JohnnyWash1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 114
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Honda's VTEC.

This all matches my thoughts on the situation, but leaves me with a question. With increasing power levels expected by consumers, Honda seems to be upping displacement with each new engine. However, for a production car, that I know of, they have never introduced a V8, Vtec or otherwise. Why is this? I understand simplicity of build and valvetrain mass, but with a V6 displacing almost as much as a Ferrari V8 (360 Modena vs. Acura 3.2TL,CL), I wonder what is truly keeping Honda back. They have displayed the financial ability to bring the hi-po V6 to the masses via the Accord (best selling car in America); why not introduce a sweet alternative to Ferrari's exclusive small displacement, hi rev V8? I have fallen in love with Honda engines, but still lust for V8s...this would wind me up beyond reason, and I know I am not alone.


Jon
__________________
2000 Mustang GT 13.99@100.4mph Exhaust
2000 Celica GTS 6-speed A very pathetic 16.5@88mph (could not shift into 2nd or 3rd) Intake
1994 Integra LS I/H/E
1990 Integra RS 16.6@85mph Intake

Last edited by JohnnyWash1; 11-24-2003 at 01:11 AM.
JohnnyWash1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2003, 07:35 PM   #28
jhillyer
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: SuckMyAss, Wyoming
Posts: 40
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Re: Honda's VTEC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyWash1
This all matches my thoughts on the situation, but leaves me with a question. With increasing power levels expected by consumers, Honda seems to be upping displacement with each new engine. However, for a production car, that I know of, they have never introduced a V8, Vtec or otherwise. Why is this? I understand simplicity of build and valvetrain mass, but with a V6 displacing almost as much as a Ferrari V8 (360 Modena vs. Acura 3.2TL,CL), I wonder what is truly keeping Honda back. They have displayed the financial ability to bring the hi-po V6 to the masses via the Accord (best selling car in America); why not introduce a sweet alternative to Ferrari's exclusive small displacement, hi rev V8? I have fallen in love with Honda engines, but still lust for V8s...this would wind me up beyond reason, and I know I am not alone.

Jon
Right, I'd be tempted by a whirring 8, 9, 10 cylinder (yeah, 9 cylinder) from Honda in displacements above 3.5 liters. I'd be swapping out German engines for these. Once favoring thrifty economy, I think foreign investors are part of the influence keeping Honda small today.
__________________
You're wasting time reading this, move onward to the next thread.
jhillyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2003, 08:40 PM   #29
Holyterror
AF Enthusiast
 
Holyterror's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 274
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Yeah, a 9 cylinder. That would be awe... wait, we want Honda to make a WWII fighter aircraft???

For Honda, hi-po = V-TEC. So, if they were going to make a V-8, it'd be for a hi-po model, so you could reasonably expect it to be V-TEC equipped. This adds up to an expensive engine. Of course, a large-cylinder I-6 might be feasible. Fewer frictional losses (a very Honda trait) and fewer components (especially the expensive valvetrain). You trade smaller cylinders and more firings for perfect balance and lighter compensators. But then, I just like the I-6.

If we see a V-8 Accord, it will probably be a less-than-thrilling Lexus type. That's my take, anyway.
__________________
"There are no substitutions for revolutions."

Member of AF's Slide Squad (Member #05)
Holyterror is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2003, 12:13 AM   #30
burly
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Blacksburg, Virginia
Posts: 181
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Variable valve timing in any form really only saves gas in one manner. A turbo or supercharged engine puts parasitic losses on an engine at all speeds, albiet in varying amounts. Variable valve timing allows the computer to turn on the "lift" so to speak, only when certain conditions are met. This can allow for a slight boost in fuel economy as long as the engine is kept in sub-lift operating ranges. Power increases however, are not free. Once lift does come on, fuel efficiency as far as MPG is concerned will drop significantly, in favor of fuel efficiency in terms of power output. So while the article may be true, it could be misleading. Either way, variable valve timing is a great engineering feat imho (biased, as I am an engineer myself). But people do need to recognize it for what it is.
__________________
Car: 2003 Malibu (Base)
Modifications: KC Fog lamps, autodimming rearview mirror w/ compass&temperature, window tinting, rear speakers, front speakers, sub, synthetic ATF & aux tranny cooler.
Future modications: Dynamat interior, alloy wheels & new tires, intake, exhaust & intake manifold???
burly is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD

Go Back   Automotive Forums .com Car Chat > Engineering/Technical

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:20 AM.

Community Participation Guidelines | How to use your User Control Panel

Powered by: vBulletin | Copyright Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
 
 
no new posts