Re: Logical FACTS as to why a Honda is not powerful

Discussion in '2002 Honda Civic Type-R' started by EK Spoon, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. It has 53/47 weight distribution and only weighs 1200kg, the brakes from the 1999 Acura Integra will fit quite easily (*note: the brakes on the 1999 Acura Integra were considered some of the best brakes on a production car EVER), and it has dual wishbone suspension, with the right struts and springs, the suspension can easily kick ass. So, with the right mods, the rest of it's performance can kick some serious ass.

    So get off it
  2. Blah Blah Blah
  3. Face it, you're dead wrong.
  4. thats just one car which is an excellentt car by the way

    a step ahead in price and emissions if you decide on mods
  5. I'm just stating my opinion, but personally here in america (im assuming most people posting here are american?) the only kinda racing that matters, is from one red light to the next. Most people DONT take their car to the track, and great for those that do, i'd love to do that, dont get me wrong. However, i dont understand what the point of bringing up topics like "my car will smoke your car on the track," When most people dont care, or at least thats how it seems... i dont even know anybody that track races their car. What matters most is drag racing, because anybody can do it on the street, well as long as you dont get caught i suppose. Which is why i am much more for accelleration, torque, and if my car is gonna get to the next light before yours. Thats all that matters <A BORDER="0" HREF=""><IMG BORDER="0" SRC=""></A> And no im not all for ONLY old muscle cars that dont handle well, i'd take a german car before american any day, as a daily driver... with the classic in the garage or somethin.
  6. people buy civics so they can do them up the way they like.....that's the fun of it. to be able to customize and tune, and upgrade and have nice light zippy cars which are fun to drive and have good handling and reliability. they are not THAT powerful stock, but that's why we buy them, one because i'm a student and i'm poor, and two because i can upgrade it and have fun and enjoy the custom car i create with what little money i have at this stage in my life.
  7. Password, have you ever just had a good conversation with anyone? I have NEVER seen you actually talking to someone. Your always having to fight with everbody about everything. Grow up and be cool with everyone and stop BSing about everything.

    BTW everyone, the new Ford GT is an example of a good number of cylinders with performance that makes other GT cars look bad. For $140k to get such a car to make 205mph factory stock, thats pretty impressive.

    Also many other cars that make out some very nice performance and top speeds such as the Koenigsegg CCR use a Supercharged V8 engine. To get a car to outperform most other cars, your going to have to take a step ahead in engine size and cylinders.
  8. Yup, I like the GT40 a lot.
  9. Yeah, I would love to get my hands on the 2005 Ford GT. That car is such sweetness <A BORDER="0" HREF=""><IMG BORDER="0" SRC=""></A>
  10. I'd take a modified civic that could run 12's over a Z06 or a SVT Cobra anyday...
  11. Z06 and SVT both run 12's and look and sound better than any civic ever will.
  12. the thing most import drivers don't understand is that with a wrong wheel drive car(front wheel drive), understeer will ALWAYS be a problem. if you've ever tried autocross racing, you'll know that you are constantly fighting understeer. you still wanna take your civic hatch against a rustang? cuz i guarantee that a low 12 second mustang could hang with a 12 second gutted civic pretty easily.

    and if you want to talk about a low price for performance, buy a 1993 rustang 5.0 for 3 or 4 grand(they are all over the place), bolt on 2 t3 turbos, lower the compression, slap on some slicks, and you have a killer on the street or strip. it is so easy to keep a full interior on a sub-12 second rustang, but how about a civic?

    the point is, hondas are grocery getters. they weren't meant to be fast. and it's pointless to spend 10 grand on a car just to get it into the 13's. camaros run high 13's stock(depending on the driver). with a little work they can easily get into the 12's, and drive home from the strip with the A/C on.
  13. just sumthing dat has been siting in my mind 4 a long long time how come everybody compares muscle v8's and import 4's and instead of comparing american v8's and import 4's y don't u guys or gurls compare american 4's like ford focus or dodge neon turbo's to import 4's

    dis is wat i think
    to me u can't compare a v8 2 a inline 4
    if u gonna compare a v8 to sumthing compare it to a supra or a skyline not a civic or a integra
    dis is just my opinion!
  14. well, because they are in the same price range. you can get a '99, '00, or even an '01 rustang GT for under 20k around here. it's kinda sad that i see civics going for a few grand less. but then again, throw some vinyl, an aluminum wing, a fart pipe, and maybe some neons on a civic, and it'll be able to beat a rustang...right?
  15. well i guess u got a point there
    well 4 me i rather keep my 95 integra den get a mustang just throw in the extra money and make it as fast or faster den a mustang but as of the moment pretty much every v8 can beat me dats y i rather race against american 4 bangers
  16. Read what I said earlier:

    "Well, considering an EF chassis DX can be made to run the 1/4 in 12.5 for under $9,000 (usd.) including the price of the car, I think that is considerably better (being less than 1/4 of the price) than the SVT Cobra's $37,000."

    I clearly indicated that for a grand total of $9000, an EF chassis Civic Dx can run the 1/4 faster than the SVT Cobra (also considerably faster than the Gts and M5), for far less money. THAT is better than the SVT Cobra, better than the Gts and M5 as well.

    Oh, and I said BELOW the level of the Corvette the SVT Cobra is pretty much the fastest V8 out there, all the other cars you mentioned are ABOVE the level of the Corvette.
  17. Eat me.

    I've had some very good conversations with other people, if you cared to venture outside the Honda forums then perhaps you would know that.

    what have I ever BS'd about? What did I BS about above for that matter?

    I think perhaps it is becoming apparent which of us needs to grow up.

    Anyway, I make thought provoking, and sometimes antagonizing posts, I'm bound to have the occasional beef with someone.
  18. Well then obviously you don't know the first thing about driving a FWD car. Ever hear of weight transfer? Ever hear of left-foot braking? Understeer is easily countered in a FWD and you can still drive it fast. On the other hand, the only thing that can be done to avoid understeer in a RWD is to not depress the throttle too early, and the only thing that can be done to avoid oversteer in a RWD is to either keep off the throttle after hitting the apex, or use drift control.

    Both FWD and RWD have their advantages and disadvantages. FWD gets severe understeer if you don't compensate for it. RWD gets severe understeer, and severe oversteer if you don't compensate for it. Both will slow you down with their disadvantages, both can be compensated for.

    Under braking, FWD is generally superior in cornering to RWD, better to enter the corner fast in a FWD, brake hard, and turn in corner slow, and exit at a reasonable speed, than to enter a corner slow in a RWD, corner slow, and exit at a fast speed in a RWD. Or at least that's my own personal preference, I can use either drivetrain layout rather well.

    As for Autocrossing, I would far rather use a Civic Hatch over a "rustang", not as much weight, more nimble, which means more maneuverable throught those turns. Once that Mustang gets sliding in the wrong direction, you may as well give up. I've seen enough races, and been in enough to know that in autocross a lightweight FWD is going to have a huge advantage over a heavy RWD.

    A low 12 second mustang is not much fun in the twisty sections, body roll is a joke.

    You're right, they weren't meant to be amazingly fast in the straight, just to have enough go juice to respond when you want to pull in the straight, and go like snot on twisty roads.

    To buy a car, and modify it, and get it into the 12's for $9000, that's not bad, not bad at all.

    Considering a Mustang of the same year is only 3/10ths of a second faster in reaching 100km/h, (EF chassis Si vs. 1990 Mustang GT), and less than one second in the 1/4, I seriously doubt it would be more profitable to get a Mustang to run 12's when it weighs nearly 3x as much as an EF chassis Dx. Sorry, but you're wrong in your assumptions.
  19. You're missing the point.

    It's a car that will last them a while, they're not going to push it hard, and can have it look the way they want for relatively cheap.

    Personally I don't like ryced out cars, but I can understand their reasoning.

Share This Page