coldinvt at gmavt.net
Wed Aug 13 13:39:04 PDT 2008
What about emissions improvements? I'm the proud owner of another bike with
seemingly superfluous valvegear, the VFR with VTEC. The previous iteration
apparently sounded better and made exactly the same power. The VTEC is
heavier and more complex and, while it doesn't make more power, I think it
sounds fantastic and the thing apparently puts out fewer greenhouse gases
than (insert clever Mason metaphor here... A gerbil fart? A beaver
sneeze?). Anyway, it's clean.
I gotta' think that big K must've had a similar motive when adding VVT. I'm
sure the info is "out there," I'm just too lazy to look for it...
From: 1KPerDay [mailto:1kperday at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:04 PM
Cc: gpzlist at micapeak.com
Subject: Re: Re: Carb sync
Excellent numbers... however the non-VVT ZX-14 will do quite a bit
better with none of the trickery. That's my only complaint. There's no
real reason for the VVT, and as you have discovered, the flies soften
a very strong engine. They could have dropped the stock ZX engine in
the connie and nobody would have complained about a lack of low-end
torque... the engine is a monster. I like the other techno-bits on
the C14, but I'm not sure I'd trust them to work forever. I do like
the shaft drive, though. I'm getting tired of chains.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Julian Solomensky <jsolo at solo-tek.com>
> No problems here with the VVT. Exhaust + power commander - flies = 150
hp at the back wheel and 100 ft lb torque, with 80+ at 3Krpm. Can't
complain about that.
More information about the GPZList