toyota vs. honda

Discussion in 'Asian Forums' started by S7TT, Jul 28, 2006.

  1. Problem being that an engine being NA vs. FI means nothing... If anything FI on small engines is better. It's THE only way small engines can hold a candle to larger displacement engines in the HP gain for your money in the aftermarket.

    Try and gain 50 or 100HP off of an NA 4 banger with a grand or 2. Can't do it. Yet it can be easily done with a ton of turbo 4 bangers that were produced.

    The only thing NA has going for it is that for some reason (that I can't understand) people seem to be impressed by high output NA engines vs comperable FI engines. So basically it's a marketing tool certain people buy into.
     
  2. or maybe people like the fact that their NA cars are more reliable, use less fuel and are better on track than turboed cars. especially cars that have huge single turbos that lag like a biatch
     
  3. Facts are those arguments are all BS.

    What engine is going to be more reliable depends on what 2 engines are in question. Turbo engine X can be more reliable than NA engine Y. Now I would go along with the generalization that NA engines are GENERALLY more reliable. But it still comes down to what engines are being compaired.

    The fuel use thing is also totally bunk. If you don't go into the turbos range, you'll get fine gas mileage. Although once again it depends on engine vs engine compairison.

    Better on track once again totally depends. I'd say the chasis and suspension has a hell of a lot more to do with how good a car is on a track. Aside from that you're generally going to stay in the part of the powerband where the turbo is spooled up and going fine when on a track. Not to mention that with certain setups you STILL end up with better low/mid range on a turbo car than on a comperably sized(displacement) NA engines of the same output.

    But yes, turbos can be laggy. Just entirely depends on the cars setup. Some turbo engines are better than some NA engines and vice versa.
     
  4. take the same car with a turbo engine or without a turbo and most of your arguments become void.
     
  5. But that's his whole point. You have to judge each option on its own merits, rather than saying turbo's aren't as good. In terms of mid-range power and torque Turbos have a massive advantage over similar displacement naturally aspirated engines.
     
  6. The S2000 doesn't have a turbo and it lags like a #%!@.
     
  7. F1 winners ftw!
     
  8. have you driven an S2000? it doesn't lag at all man, i don't know wtf your on about. try drive a WRX, thats what i call LAG
     
  9. #109 fully hectic, Aug 7, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  10. #110 exer51, Aug 8, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  11. I just realised the subaru graph should be shifted about 500 rpm to the left. Anyway, you get the idea.
     
  12. Even more pawned. Haha. Hondas... Lame.
     
  13. typical ignorant honda fanboy.
     
  14. lol, have YOU driven an s2k? i know someone who actually owns one, it pulls like a 4 banger accord until 6k and then all of the sudden its a different motor.
     
  15. #115 chodewafer, Aug 8, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  16. neither, Toyota is boring and Honda make the new Civic, so I hate them both
     
  17. if anything, the supra was the competitor of the nsx and the s2000 with the mr2
     
  18. i think the nsx was more of a ferrari competitor of the day. though unluckily for honda, ferrari has made newer sports cars in the last 15 years. the nsx was definatly impressive when it orignaly came out, but now if anything it simply shows how little Honda has done to improve upon the VTEC motors it started making nearly 2 decades ago.
     
  19. Honda

    Honda Integra Type R dc2(Mr2 Turbo cannot compare)
    Honda NSX (Toyota Supra cannot compare)
    Honda Civic Type R (Toyota Celica cannot compare)

    Its all about V-tec Power!!!
     
  20. I would rather own a Scion personally, so Toyota.
     
  21. #121 Elf Man, Sep 11, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    its considered one of the best selling sports car ever
    and sports cars dont have to be fast, just fun

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mx5
     
  22. would you feel insecure driving an mx5? clearly you have a small penis
     
  23. you think the clio is a great car and bag out the mx5? you do know both are considered the best in thei category? cheap thrills in small cars is the underlying theme. CLio is the best hot hatch and the mx5 is the best sports car in its price range. ALWAYS remember the price range
     
  24. This is precisly th point where you yell VTEC TIME DAWG
     
  25. but you dont compare the supra to the s2002, same with mr2 and nsx
    should be mr2 vs s2000
    supra vs nsx
     

Share This Page