95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

Discussion in '2000 Honda Accord Euro R' started by JESTERFIELD, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Re: 95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

    i would have to say that this has been the worst reply to anything ive ever seen in my entire life. im so glad you are banned
     
  2. Re: 95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

    There's an Accord DX? Hmmm... I always thought it was EX, LX and Base. What happened to the EX-Rs of days past?
     
  3. Re: 95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

    isn't there a civic DX?? maybe he meant civic but he wanted to look good so he said he had an accord
     
  4. Re: 95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

    wow. I can't even believe that there were this many responses to this topic, I just had to read in deeper didn't I. Being geared to pull and being geared to accelerate is the same thing, LOWER GEARS. They both probably have similar gears anyways, thats how manufacturer's get away with putting weener engines in new cars, GEARIN THEM LOWER. All higher gearing does is makes the top speed higher, NO ACCELERATION IMPROVEMENTS. ok, i feel better now.
     
  5. Re: 95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

    Um, you have it the wrong way around. Higher gearing means the car revs higher more quickly.


    What you're thinking of is Tall gear ratios (high speed) vs. short gear ratios (quick acceleration).
     
  6. Re: 95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

    hahahahahha... a 95 honda accord is in no was fast.. who cars if an f150 is slower its a truck... the way you posted it seemed like it took a while to get to 60.. so many people with little hondas think thier so fast and handle good. but they dont... there not sports car why try to make them one.
     
  7. Re: 95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

    hondas handle like crap and are slow.... even acuras.... there decent cars... but not sports cars.. in any way... you cant put an exhaust and an intake and fly around town, it only sounds like you are.
     
  8. Re: 95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

    Oh, really? s'funny, I could have sworn an average speed of 160km/h on a road with a posted speed limit of 80km/h was awfully fast, I mean to go through such a twisty road so quickly.... And that in a 1990 1.6 EF Civic Si.

    Stock they're fairly good, ryced out they're no better, only sound annoying, and modified well, they make VERY competent race cars.

    They're passenger cars with the performance, acceleration, and handling of a sports car, without the sports car insurance.

    And if you think they handle like crap, you've obviously never been in one, and they're faster than the average vehicle.
     
  9. Re: 95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

    those cars dont handle good.. ive been in lots of hondas and none of them handle good. and there slow.. i know you know that.. you have to drive a real sports car. one thats proved its self as a sports car. my bro has a 2004 mini cooper, i have a 88 porsche 924S those cars handle good. i know some hondas now a days are not that slow.. but by no means are they sports cars, at all... what so cool about fixing up a family car and spending so much money, say you spend $3,500 on your $8,000 (used civic) or new $17,000... all you have to do is buy a 7,000 dollar porsche 944 turbo and blow the doors off it liike there is no tommorow. think about what you say.. deive a sports car. compare the two
     
  10. Re: 95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

    Honda's handle exceptionally well, in fact my only real complaint about Honda's is that while the drivetrain and suspension are great for handling on pavement, the drivetrain and suspension isn't very durable, I've personally gone through 3 sets of struts, replaced the CV joints and boots once, and had to change the clutch once. Granted all that was due to the harsh treatment that occurs in rally racing, but with say a Golf, the suspension would put up with the punishment much better. Anyway, point is, that while the suspension isn't the greatest for durability, it works well for handling quite well. With a 53/47 weight distribution, the EF chassis Civic handles exceptionally well.

    The Honda NSX is one of the best handling cars ever made, far beyond all Porsche's, short of the GT1, and FAR FAR beyond the Mini Cooper.

    Yes, the new Mini Handles exceptionally well, especially for a front wheel drive, however, the Civic is much better for advanced techniques, it is quite neutral between oversteer and understeer, and while it is prone to either one, that can be taken advantage of quite easily.

    I've driven a number of performance vehicles (i.e. faster than the average vehicle): 2001 S2000, 1999 Porsche Boxster, Group-N prepped WRX, 2002&1990 Civic Si, 1979 Camaro, 1988 Porsche 911, 1986 RX-7, 1987&2000 Accord, 2000&1993 Mustang GT, 2003 Mini Cooper, and a few others. Far and away the best was the Group-N WRX, but since it had an aftermarket off-road suspension, it doesn't really qualify. Beyond that, the most responsive, and best cornering was the S2000, followed closely by the Boxster, the 2002 Civic and Mini Cooper were pretty much even, the 2002 GT was very close, but a bit too heavy for my tastes. the RX-7 was my favourite, but still not the best for handling.

    Hondas are definitely NOT sports cars, however the Civic has thoroughly established itself as a passenger car with the handling and acceleration of a sports car. 8.2 seconds to reach 100km/h is certainly just as fast as the majority of sports cars in the early 1990's, and for the new Civic, 6.7 seconds to reach 100km/h is just as fast as most sports cars out there today. And with the EF chassis which had a 53/47 weight distribution, and that typically "Honda, race car" feel, it certainly has great potential for a high performance car.

    The alternative is that you could buy a used EF chassis Civic for $3500, spend a mere $5500 on it in modifications, and run 12.5 seconds in the 1/4. I don't know of ANY stock Porsche (short of the GT1, or Carrera GT) that runs that fast in the 1/4. And it would most certainly blow the doors of ANY porsche (particularly a 944) like there is no tomorrow.

    Think about what YOU say, drive a sports car, compare the two....I already have. And am quite impressed with Honda for what they can do with such little displacement, while remaining efficient and low on emissions.
     
  11. Re: 95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

    ok... first off, tell me about this is not a little bit better of a deal then buying a new civic. a porsche 944 (89) 1/4 mile in 13.5sec, 0-60 5.5 sec you can get a 944 turbo for $5000-12,000. that car handles better then any honda (ok, maybe not ANY) made. and is faster then most all of them. a nsx is not the best handling car ever made. a porsche gt3 would kill it in every thing.. why dont you read some road and track or car and driver. a gt2 and porsche turbo 996 would to as well. look up some info about these cars. i didnt read all of your list of cars but you sai a mini cooper is good for a front wheel driver car?????? drive one. it is better then 98% of cars on the road or at least that commonly seen. rear wheel drive or not. you can do anything in a mini... the other day some idiots wanted to race my bro, then reved on him, he didnt look, they yelled to him and called him names (id say them but im not sure if i can,haha) so he threw hi jack in the box bag and soda at the driver and passenger..... they folled him for a long time till he lost them in the back roads (reidential) it was pretty fixed up too.. but you know it has a lot to do with the driver.. my friend in my conclusion i must say we all have different hobbies and likes and dis-likes. i understand your liking for these cars so i will not be an ass and bug you anymore thanks <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
     
  12. Re: 95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

    No, I mean NO 944 is that fast, try 7.9 seconds for an 89 944.

    Actually, the NSX-R and GT3 are fairly even around a track (in fact they have almost the EXACT SAME lap time around Nurburgring), even though the GT3 is faster in acceleration, what does this mean? It means the NSX-R more than makes up for the difference in handling. I.E., the NSX-R handles significantly better. Road and Track and Car and Driver have NEVER tested the NSX-R, so they have no say in this. BTW - Road and Track recently rated the STi a "superior buy" to the GT3, and the NSX-R is DEFINITELY superior to the STi in every way for a street car.

    As I said, I've driven a 2002 Mini Cooper, and said that it was very good, but no better than the 2001 Si where advanced driving techniques are concerned, the Mini Cooper S may outdo the Type-R though, accelleration will be fairly close.

    I have the same thing all the time in my 1990 Civic Si, I don't really care anymore, but if they bug me enough, then I'll race them, haven't lost yet.
     
  13. Re: 95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

    hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahah......... you must have a motor swap.. or your car is helllllllllaaaa slow. porsche is better then the sti, the only thing thats better then the gt3 is the price. nothing else. face the facts ang get your head out of your ass... hahahahahha. in the end a honda is a honda.. you dont have a nsx... odd are you probably never will... my first car is a porsche. no matter what kind it is, its a porsche.

    the end.
    a 2004 mini cooper s would beat any type r or civic on the track.... easliy
     
  14. Re: 95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

    8.2 seconds to 100km/h is in no way slow for a stock (particularly a 1990 1.6 litre) passenger car.

    I haven't seen one Porsche yet that was faster than an STi on a dirt road, but that's besides the point. Considering the STi is only 1/10th of a second slower than the GT3 in acceleration, handles better on dirt, and wet pavement, handles just slightly worse on dry pavement, and has the same Boxer engine layout, and costs much less than 1/2 the price, the STi is by far the better buy, that's WHY they rated it the better car.

    My head isn't up anything, I know exactly where the facts lie.

    In the end Honda is Honda - quite possibly the best Engine designers out there. I don't have an NSX, likely will within the next 20 years.

    In all honesty, I was actually looking at getting a mid 80's 944 for my first car, but after finding out how minimal the acceleration advantage was over the Civic Si, practicality disadvantage, minimal handling advantage (basically closer to the ground and stiffer suspension, bout it), poorer economy, and deplorable crash safety, I opted for the much cheaper Civic Si.

    The 2004 Mini Cooper S is very close in acceleration (just slightly slower) to the Civic Type-R, and handling is about the same for advanced driving techniques, so the outcome would really depend on atmospheric conditions, road surface (I think the Mini is slightly better on slippery surfaces), and driver.....that's IT. so, no, it would not "easily" beat the Civic on a track.
     
  15. Re: 95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

    try the 959 rally car.. i think the gt3 difference is more then a 1/10 sec slower.
     
  16. Re: 95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

    WTF r u talking about?

    the GT3 acceleration times are far from accurate, hell, they have the Corvette Z06 completing the 400km/h (1/4) in 14 seconds, while the NSX does it in 11, that's FAR from accurate, and many other cars have very inaccurate acceleration times.
     
  17. Re: 95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

    i read a lot of car magizines and talk to a lot of people. thats where i get my facts.. the gt3 is quicker on the track then the zo6 so dont even bring it up, my friend has a magizine that has the new evo, zo6 and the gt3.. the porsche killed em.. why dont you read the back list of specs in road and track.. front wheel drive cars suck. you cant do shit compared to rear
     
  18. Re: 95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

    "try the 959 rally car.. i think the gt3 difference is more then a 1/10 sec slower"

    I was responding to this, by the way you wrote it It appeared you were referring to the game GT3 A-spec, and how the 959 rally car was faster than anything else.

    But now that I realize you were using the fact that it was faster than the GT3 to "prove" that the 959 was fast, think about this: of course the 959 was fast, it was a Group-B rally car, some of which were capable of reaching 100km/h in 1.8 seconds on dirt.

    And yes, I know the GT3 is faster than the EVO and Z06 around a track (though barely faster than the Z06) and y'know what? the NSX-R is capable of being just as fast around a track, as proven by their comparative Nordschleife times.


    FWD cars are just as good for certain forms of racing (such as rallying and autocross) as RWD cars, it's a proven fact. The driving technique required is just different, most people can't drive a FWD car well, some can.

    You're not the only one who reads magazines, but y'know what? reading magazines pales in comparison than true racing experience.
     
  19. Re: 95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

    i was saying the 959 rally car is better on the dirt then the sub.. then i was say that the gt3 is more then a 1/10 sec faster then the wrx
     
  20. Re: 95 Accord I-4 vs. 99 Ford V-6 F-150

    the 959 rally car was a Group B rally car, whereas the 555 Subaru is a Group A rally car, quite a difference there. With the 400-600hp typical of Group B rally cars, the "Sub" would be much faster, especially with its modern day technology. Audi is the only company with an AWD drivetrain that was better in the 80's than anything today, and they have developed their drivetrain to be "user friendly" now instead of for performance driving, so they no longer hold the distinction for the best AWD drivetrain out there.

    As for the GT3 - you're saying that even though the GT3 is more than 3x the price of the WRX, it's only 1/10th of a second faster to 100km/h than the 5.4 second WRX??? Sounds like the Impreza is the much better buy, especially since (according to what you inaccurately claim) the STi must then be nearly a full second faster to 100km/h despite being much cheaper than the GT3.

    It was the STi they tested against the GT3, not the WRX, and the STi's 4.8 seconds to 100km/h was only 1/10th of a second slower than the GT3, and don't even try to claim that the GT3 is faster than 4.7 seconds to 100km/h, as we both know it's not.
     

Share This Page