only 150 bhp??

only 150 bhp??

Author
Discussion

bazzio

Original Poster:

35 posts

207 months

Tuesday 25th September 2007
quotequote all
hi all, i really fancy a vx220 na. but why only 150 bhp??? its a 2.2 engine!! years ago i had a 1995 honda civic vti that has a 1.6 engine that has 160 bhp!!! thats 10 years earlier. 150 bhp out of 2.2 is a bit weak dont you think lads??? im not dissing them just think its not much power from a 2.2??

p4cks

7,013 posts

206 months

Tuesday 25th September 2007
quotequote all
They weigh less than your brain does, fcuk nut.

BHP means all. Torque is what moves cars. I don't think a VX220 is right for you anyway.

Silent1

19,761 posts

242 months

Tuesday 25th September 2007
quotequote all
p4cks said:
They weigh less than your brain does, fcuk nut.

BHP means all. Torque is what moves cars. I don't think a VX220 is right for you anyway.
Don't be such a dick, we try and be helpful on this forum rather than just slag each other off

wasted years

4,330 posts

216 months

Tuesday 25th September 2007
quotequote all
Bloody quick so really don't be put off by the numbers. Go for it!

bazzio

Original Poster:

35 posts

207 months

Tuesday 25th September 2007
quotequote all
P4CKS what a nob!!! was just stating that 150bhp from a 2.2 wasn't to hot!!

r5gttgaz

7,897 posts

227 months

Tuesday 25th September 2007
quotequote all
But the 1600 Honda lumps need to rev to 10 squillion rpm to get anywhere and have such little torque that they struggle on slight inclines and head winds.


bazzio

Original Poster:

35 posts

207 months

Tuesday 25th September 2007
quotequote all
r5gttgaz said:
But the 1600 Honda lumps need to rev to 10 squillion rpm to get anywhere and have such little torque that they struggle on slight inclines and head winds.
yeah i know what you mean, but with the vx being so light you dont need so much torque to move it. i know its at a normal state of tune so its going to be very reliable and have loades of torque. im into bikes (gsxr750) so i dont mind reving the tits out of an engine!! i like both!!!!

Zo-fo

193 posts

257 months

Wednesday 26th September 2007
quotequote all
bazzio said:
r5gttgaz said:
But the 1600 Honda lumps need to rev to 10 squillion rpm to get anywhere and have such little torque that they struggle on slight inclines and head winds.
yeah i know what you mean, but with the vx being so light you dont need so much torque to move it. i know its at a normal state of tune so its going to be very reliable and have loades of torque. im into bikes (gsxr750) so i dont mind reving the tits out of an engine!! i like both!!!!
I find the power delivery of my VXT not dissimilar from my 900 Monster and I like it (they both have loads of torque). Perhaps you should try a higher revving Toyota-engined Elise?

Mattt

16,663 posts

225 months

Wednesday 26th September 2007
quotequote all
p4cks said:
They weigh less than your brain does, fcuk nut.

BHP means all. Torque is what moves cars. I don't think a VX220 is right for you anyway.
Seems to be quite a lot of mouthy newbies recently!

wasted years

4,330 posts

216 months

Wednesday 26th September 2007
quotequote all
Wot James said!

p4cks

7,013 posts

206 months

Wednesday 26th September 2007
quotequote all
Point taken. Apologies Bazzio. Just winds me up when people see the VX having 'only' 147 bhp without looking into the full picture. Hope you find a decent one.

beer

Mattt

16,663 posts

225 months

Wednesday 26th September 2007
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm sure the OP understands power to weight ratios - his question is why the engine outputs such low bhp/litre.

r5gttgaz

7,897 posts

227 months

Wednesday 26th September 2007
quotequote all
Probably to stop Vauxhall having an N/A car that would totally anhialate the Lotus Elise / Exige.

I can see it now......

Mr Vaux: Hello Mr Lotus, we have a 220bhp high revving lump that we'd like you to provide a chassis for and also construct along side your metro engined version.
Mr Lotus: Click, durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

bazzio

Original Poster:

35 posts

207 months

Wednesday 26th September 2007
quotequote all
Mattt said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm sure the OP understands power to weight ratios - his question is why the engine outputs such low bhp/litre.
yeah you are spot on mate!!

bazzio

Original Poster:

35 posts

207 months

Wednesday 26th September 2007
quotequote all
r5gttgaz said:
Probably to stop Vauxhall having an N/A car that would totally anhialate the Lotus Elise / Exige.

I can see it now......

Mr Vaux: Hello Mr Lotus, we have a 220bhp high revving lump that we'd like you to provide a chassis for and also construct along side your metro engined version.
Mr Lotus: Click, durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
yeah your progably right, i think its a better car anywayclap

flat-over-crest

14 posts

212 months

Wednesday 26th September 2007
quotequote all
I think your missing the point. The 2.2 VX engine wasnt designed for a lightweight sportscar. It was built to shift Repmobile Vectras and Astras about. The Civic engine was probably specially developed for that car.

Anyhow the 2.2 is pretty tunable, Im picking my VX up in a few days and thats had a sports exhaust and rolling road remap and has 160 BHP (dyno printout to prove this). Next stage up has cams and gas flow head and adds another 15+ BHP. Not to bad for a shopping car engine!

Check out Thorney Motorsport for more tuning stuff.

PS. P4cks is well known on VX220.org and knows his stuff. wavey

Edited by flat-over-crest on Wednesday 26th September 21:14

p4cks

7,013 posts

206 months

Wednesday 26th September 2007
quotequote all
flat-over-crest,

you should have a look over z22se.co.uk and see what a bloke called 'Vocky' has done. Very very impressive results, and I'm halfway there too ;-)


mcarrick69

1,916 posts

235 months

Friday 28th September 2007
quotequote all
Fair enough Jap engines are a little different and yes, I'm impressed how they get 200BHP from a 2.0 in the CTR but in comparison to other vauxhall engines (2.5 v6 - 173BHP). Even Ford, VW and Rover etc... its about average, and because it is a recent engine, light weight torquey and timing chain'd it would probably be one of the most suitable engine for VX to put in the VX220.

Would rather one than the 1.8 K series in the Elise!

stevenandalex

124 posts

211 months

Saturday 29th September 2007
quotequote all
When you do get bored of the performance as I did, you can easily upgrade the engine, check out www.courtenaysport.co.uk they are fantastic guys and are the best in the business.

Winstar

110 posts

229 months

Tuesday 9th October 2007
quotequote all
Sorry for the late reply I don’t check in here much

As mentioned above the 2.2 in the VX was designed by Lotus Powertrain to have a very flat torque curve in the mid rev range, which peaks at 155 lb.ft, primarily for pulling along rep mobiles. Where as most of the jap engines have a lot less torque and produce their power by running at high rpm, as power = torque*engine speed.

While power to weight ratio is quoted for how fast something is it is actually the torque curve to weight that defines how fast a car travels, as from Newton’s second law acceleration = Force / Mass and the torque curve is the force available as that point in the rev range.

Now one problem that has recently been discovered is that the inlet manifold while providing good mid range torque it strangles the engine at high speed, however the inlet manifold from the American 2.4 version of the engine solves this liberating another 15 -20 bhp for about £100-£150 and a power curve much more suited to a sports car.

Rob