Post subject: The difference between 16V and VT

I've had my VT for a while now and I had a 16V for quite a long time before that.

This topic is really aimed at those people who are new to CRXs and want to know which one to buy.

Firstly,

The VTEC models are a lot more expensive than the 16V for the same condition. A good 16V can be had for around £1500 wheras a good VT should expect to fetch around £2500 upwards depending on milage and condition.

Obviously the most obvious difference is the fact the VT has the VTEC engine. This engine allows the use of two wildly different cam profiles on the same engine, effectivly providing a very wide power band and good drivability at low RPM, along with a screaming top end.

The 16V is still a very good engine with 130bhp (as opposed to the VT's 150bhp) and a reasonably wide power band. The use of rockers allowed Honda to use a very 'square' cam profile which gives good flow characteristics without requireing a long duration cam. This gives a very drivable power curve with good power from around 3000rpm and a noticable push from 5500rpm all the way to 7200rpm. In contrast the VTEC pulls well all over the rev range due to a very linear power curve and from around 5000rpm feels noticably quicker than the 16v.

There are other subtle changes in other areas of the car as well.

The VTEC model was facelifted, mainly as a result of the VTEC engine itself not really fitting in the engine bay of the 16V properly. It has different headlights, rear lights, bumpers, bonnet, wheels and rear spoiler. I personally prefer the look of the VTEC model, but opinion is divided. The 16V looks a lot more 80s in my opinion, the VTEC looks very modern.

Inside the VTEC gets leather seats. You have to be careful about these. I haven't seen a pair yet that don't have significant wear on them. They tend to split along the seam between the bottom side bolster and the actual bit you sit on, which can look messy. The problem appears to be that this panel was made form Vinyl faced fabric rather than leather, probably to cut costs. Quite often this can be repaired but it has to be caught early. I am looking to replace the whole panel on mine with leather which hopefully will solve the problem.

The 16V got velour seats with CRX written on them. These are pretty much the same design as the VT seats but from Velour. Both types are very supportive and comfortable, the Leathers seem to be a bit narrower, probably to hold you in as the leather itself is very slippery.

Other changes to the interior are limited to the door cards (leather on the VT, a weird suede effect on the 16V), the instrument binnacle (looks a lot more modern on the VT) and the colour. The VT’s interior is slightly darker than the 16V.

Other changes include thicker glass on the VT (heavier due to legislation), and slightly revised suspension and brakes. The VT gets bigger brakes with ABS as standard and a thicker rear anti-roll bar, which makes it a bit more stable in high speed corners, but also tends to go to oversteer more readily. Overall it is slightly better balanced on the edge though.

To make way for the larger brakes (I think) the turning circle was increased, the 16V can turn much quicker than the VT in slow manoeuvres, and as a result the steering is a bit too slow on the VT for my liking. A net result of the lower geared rack though is a much smaller steering wheel, which is leather bound. The 16V steering wheel is a bit tacky really and resembles a bus steering wheel, the VT one is much nicer.

Much of the rest of the car is pretty much identical on both models as demonstrated by the fact that many parts are interchangeable between the models.

So how does this relate to the real world?

Well, due to the extra weight there is a minimal difference in performance between the two models but the VT is much easier to access the performance. The 16V can be a bit hard work in traffic but the VT has impeccable manners all the time. Both sound brilliant (the D16, 16V engine was used for the engine noises in the Fast and the Furious) but the VT sounds a bit more ‘Japanese’, difficult to explain, you’d have to hear them both.
When driving the 16V engine feels a lot more punchy, the VT feels a lot more relaxed (but still insanely quick and responsive), and can quite often creep up on you, culminating with you glancing down at the speedo and getting quite a shock!

The VT ultimately handles better than the 16v but seems to have grown up a bit and lost some of the rawness that made the 16V so appealing. The 16V seems to have a bit more steering feedback (this could just be the tyres on my VT which are nowhere near as good as the Eagle F1s I had on my 16V). It feels as though someone forgot to tell the Honda boys that they were designing a road car so they produced a track car in the 16V, then someone reminded them when they did the VT. Consequently the 16V is an absolute hooligan of a car and great fun to boot. The VT probably makes a better everyday proposition and is just as good fun, but mainly because of the engine. A bit like put foot down and hold on. The level of grip the CRX can provide in corners is simply intoxicating, this applies to both cars especially if the bushes have been replaced recently.

I’m sure a lot of people will have their own take on this and bits to add. Hopefully this will help people when deciding which model to choose (just buy them both!)