Why ryce?

Discussion in '2002 Honda Civic Type-R' started by USRACING, Oct 29, 2002.

  1. Re: Why ryce?

    But there are none of those in america, and certainly none rycers can get their hands on.
     
  2. Re: Why ryce?

    Only about 10-20% of the worlds car enthusiasts live in america.
     
  3. Re: Why ryce?

    Most SVT focuses are sold in america. That means ford was targeting cars sold in america. They wanted to compete with honda. The Si was as close as they got.
     
  4. Re: Why ryce?

    I have a BMW 325i, last week i actually raced a Honda Civic Type R. He was trying really hard but so was I and I smoked Him. I was acually quite supprised. But let that be a lesson to everyone. on paper one car may beat the other but in the real world you could be very embarrased.
     
  5. Re: Why ryce?

    Wow, they should feel proud, they beat a car that Honda put very little effort into, I don't think anybody could care less if the focus can beat the SI. The focus can't even compete with Honda because the focus isn't very reliable. Make all the excuses you like, ford just can't beat a target vehicle without raising the class of the car they're working with. Look at the RS, it had to be turbo'ed to beat the Type-R, now it's in the same class as the Impreza, the Impreza wails on it too.

    Ford should just stick to what they know: Trucks.....! The North American market is insignificant to anyone other than North Americans.
     
  6. Re: Why ryce?

    The Civic Type-R obviously wasn't trying. The Civic Type R is actually has a much better power to weight ratio than the BMW 330i, let alone the 325i (only 190bhp or so, IIRC, pretty pathetic for a 2.5L V6).

    Up to about 20mph you might be better due to RWD giving better traction, but once traction isn't an issue *you'd* be the one smoked.

    I assume you are in Europe or Japan, since they don't sell Civic Type R's anywhere else at the moment.

    Tom
     
  7. Re: Why ryce?

    The focus isnt reliable? Where the **** are you getting this?

    And there is nothing wrong with adding a turbo to a car, punk.

    ford only knows trucks? You ignorant little bastard. First, ford sells way more cars than honda ever will, so they have to be doing something right. The sad thing is, ford makes a truck that is faster than the type R (SVT lighting) and they make the mustang, which just kicks hondas ass. Also, who the hell do you think owns Aston Martin? You think ford doesnt know about performance?
     
  8. #58 Ford rulez, Nov 19, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: Why ryce?

    Check out these links on reviews of both Civic and Focus regarding reliability.

    http://www.carreview.com/pscAutomobiles/Midsize-Compact/Ford,Focus/PRD_22208_1531crx.aspx

    http://www.carreview.com/pscAutomobiles/Midsize-Compact/Honda,Civic/PRD_258_1531crx.aspx

    note the overall ratings

    and the fact that the longer the people have owned the Focus, the worse the rating...

    I hardly consider mass producing a vehicle that has an engine wire that could catch on fire under normal driving conditions reliable.

    No, there is nothing wrong with adding a turbo, however when it's required to beat the acceleration of a car with the same size engine I find it quite humourous.

    Ford sells cheaper cars, ford doesn't invest as much in quality control thus making it easier to mass produce cars faster, North Americans who don't know much about cars still have the primitive "imports = rusty tin can, domestics = big & powerful" attitude, and only see the higher sticker price, ford owns more companies (thanks to the commercialized American economy) and those sales are included, Honda still makes their OWN cars using their OWN technology (which means more time and money spent in development than on production and marketing), and totalled up more Hondas are sold than Fords anyway(you forgot to include used vehicles).

    Most people would rather buy a used car that's in just-like-new condition for a few thousand less than pay that extra few grand for a car that's in minimally better shape. How many used Fords vs. used Hondas do you see that are still in good running shape? the number of Hondas far outweighs the number of Fords (statistically speaking).

    Chevrolet has a Faster truck than both the Mustang and the SVT lightning, does that make either sad? NO, both are designed for drag racing, and the Type-R would make a better all-round race car anyway. Remember, speed isn't all there is to performance, a 1/4 mile time of 9s is useless when you need to make that first turn.

    The Mustang SVT Cobra and a few other models kick The Civic's ass, but do you really think it could compare to the S2000 which IS in the same price range? doubt it. The Type-R would totally dominate the Mustang GT however (which IS the same price), particularly when it comes to handling, competition would likely be pretty even at the strip, actually no it wouldn't considering I beat someone (my family doctor in fact) who was driving a 2001 mustang GT, in my 1990 STOCK SI, though I just barely beat him and he may have been a bad driver.

    Ford owns Aston Martin, Jaguar, AND Mazda, but do you honestly think that they bought those companies so they could design the cars themselves? Don't kid yourself, they bought those companies for their own benefit, which includes using the technology of those companies on their own cars, have you noticed that Fords cars targeting the Import scene have improved over the past few years? Well, this might startle you, but the Focus - It's almost completely based on Mazda design. Fords Engine technology has drastically improved due to those other manufacturers, general handling has improved thanks to both Aston Martin and Mazda, reliability has improved thanks to Mazda. Just because Ford owns those companies, doesn't mean they are responsible for making the cars of those companies, indeed, it's much the other way around.

    To say it in a few words: Ford doesn't make those companies, those companies make ford, and ford gets to reap the profit.

    Does ford know performance? yes

    Does ford know compact and efficient performance? Not as much as other manufacturers.

    Does ford know reliability? durability yes and no, but definitely not reliability.

    Does ford know design ingenuity? they have a long way to go
     
  9. Re: Why ryce?

    Reliability- The only real problem ford has is the glitches in the focus, these will wear out in time.

    Horsepower is horsepower, I dont care if you have to quad turbo a 6.0 liter engine to beat a 2 liter engine. more horespower is simply more horsepower.

    I see more old fords then i do old hondas. When i see a vintage car, its probably a ford. Especially trucks.

    What truck is faster than the SVT? Its probably either a concept or 50 thousand dollars more.

    Strip times mean quite alot here. That is why we have top fuel cars and funny cars and pro stock cars. track racing is big in europe. In america, its all about strip times.

    The S2000 vs SVT cobra? you are talking a 240 horsepower car vs. a 390 horsepower car. The SVTs 0-60 and 1/4 times are in a different league.

    Mustangs are very fast, belive me, my father owns a 2002, and it will take alot more than a 1990 civic Si to beat it.


    Ford has those compaines, they can play them as they wish.
     
  10. Re: Why ryce?

    That one glitch is just one example among many. Whether or not all the "glitches" are worked out, a 2002 Civic (any model) will be on the road and in better running condition longer than a 2002 focus (any model) will be, keep an eye out in 2020<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>.

    So what do you say to a twin turbo 2.0 liter Volkswagen Golf Trampling a Corvette?

    I very much doubt that you see more old fords on the road, particularly if you count motorbikes. I see roughly 4-5 more Hondas that are more than 10 years old in a week than I do fords.

    The Chevy Silverado SS (yes it's a concept) is just slightly faster, but that doesn't mean anything the point was that comparing the Ford lightning to the Civic Type-R was a retarded comparison. The Civic Type-R isn't meant to be fast, it's just meant to be an excellent all-around performance car for its class. (by the way the Ford Lightning is just barely faster 0-100km/h than the Type-R)

    Strip times mean very little, and are gradually meaning less and less in the us, hence the waning interest in Nascar, and NHRA, and growing interest in GT and the WRC (yes the interest is waning, it'll be a few years before the shift is very noticeable though). So you can take your strip times and shove them.....oops<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A> . Strip times mean a little, but not much. You do know by the way that Toyota is currently testing a Drag Celica that does the 1/4 mile in under 6 seconds right?

    The SVT Cobra is a bit faster, but have you ever heard of power/weight ratio? 0-100 times are not much different - about 6 tenths of a second (I'm speaking of the cobra in the same price range as the S2000), I don't think the S2000 would win there, but it would definitely win on a twisty track, and is a much more equal comparison than any honda, I would've compared the NSX but that would be an unfair comparison.

    The Mustang GT, first off I did beat a 2001 (though as I mentioned - barely, and his was an automatic, and I think he was a bad driver, nevertheless I still beat him in a manual 1990 Civic SI - you can accelerate very quickly if you know what you are doing {how's 6-8 seconds for 0-100km/h sound to you?}), and I'm referring to a low end version of a sports car that has FAKE hood scoops, and FAKE air intakes vs. the REAL thing, even if it is a lower class the Civic Type-R could dominate it. The Mustang GT is just like the Civic SI - a vehicle designed as a daily driver for getting groceries.

    Ford is not playing with them, they are still their own companies, ford just reaps extra profit, and benefits from rights to the technology.That one glitch is just one example among many. Whether or not all the "glitches" are worked out, a 2002 Civic (any model) will be on the road and in better running condition longer than a 2002 focus (any model) will be, keep an eye out in 2020<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>.

    So what do you say to a twin turbo 2.0 liter Volkswagen Golf Trampling a Corvette?

    I very much doubt that you see more old fords on the road, particularly if you count motorbikes. I see roughly 4-5 more Hondas that are more than 10 years old in a week than I do fords.

    The Chevy Silverado SS (yes it's a concept) is just slightly faster, but that doesn't mean anything the point was that comparing the Ford lightning to the Civic Type-R was a retarded comparison. The Civic Type-R isn't meant to be fast, it's just meant to be an excellent all-around performance car for its class. (by the way the Ford Lightning is just barely faster 0-100km/h than the Type-R)

    Strip times mean very little, and are gradually meaning less and less in the us, hence the waning interest in Nascar, and NHRA, and growing interest in GT and the WRC (yes the interest is waning, it'll be a few years before the shift is very noticeable though). So you can take your strip times and shove them.....oops<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A> . Strip times mean a little, but not much. You do know by the way that Toyota is currently testing a Drag Celica that does the 1/4 mile in under 6 seconds right?

    The SVT Cobra is a bit faster, but have you ever heard of power/weight ratio? 0-100 times are not much different - about 6 tenths of a second (I'm speaking of the cobra in the same price range as the S2000), I don't think the S2000 would win there, but it would definitely win on a twisty track, and is a much more equal comparison than any honda, I would've compared the NSX but that would be an unfair comparison.

    The Mustang GT, first off I did beat a 2001 (though as I mentioned - barely, and his was an automatic, and I think he was a bad driver, nevertheless I still beat him in a manual 1990 Civic SI - you can accelerate very quickly if you know what you are doing ), and I'm referring to a low end version of a sports car that has FAKE hood scoops, and FAKE air intakes vs. the REAL thing, even if it is a lower class the Civic Type-R could dominate it. The Mustang GT is just like the Civic SI - a vehicle designed as a daily driver for getting groceries.

    Ford is not playing with them, they are still their own companies, ford just reaps extra profit, and benefits from rights to the technology.
     
  11. Re: Why ryce?

    A twin turbo golf beating a corvette? what do I say to that? Congrats. Corvettes are not the best way to get speed if track times is all you want. The best way to get a fast car is get and old mustang, camaro, or firbird and modify them up.


    You beating a mustang GT is hardly beliveable. The fact that he has an automatic makes it even more unbelieveable. You wanna know why? Automatics are very fast on the strip, infact, many people perfer them over sticks because more consistant track times. If he has an automatic, unless his reaction time was absolutley horrible, you could not have beat him.

    Silverado SS CONCEPT. CONCEPT is the key word. SVT is production. You could make a concept car with 50 bazillion horspower, but if you cant produce it, why bother?

    Ford did not make the SVT cobra for track times, they made it as a drag straight line car. They gave america what it wanted.

    You think a Mustang GT is made for getting groceries? You ignorant little bastard, you dont know jack shit about cars. Period. They put the scoops on because they knew they could not really increase the price much more, and they wanted the car to look good. I WISH hondas had fake hoodscoops, to make them less fugly.
     
  12. Re: Why ryce?

    Ever heard of gear ratio??? the gear ratio on automatics always has been and always will be very pathetic, most automatics are geared for gas mileage rather than acceleration, and often under forced acceleration (ie: pedal to floor) they have big lapses between gear shifts. Standards can provide much more consistent results and barely slow down at all if you both shift at the right moment and shift precisely.

    I really couldn't care less whether you believe me or not, the fact is I beat him, which is in part why I have the opinion that the GT is a slow model in a fast lineup. His reaction time was fine, though I think he was trying very hard to make sure he didn't squeal the tires, as I didn't hear them chirp once. The new Mustang GT's are much slower than the old ones, at the time they were the fastest version available the new GT is not.

    Perfect example: last winter I raced a buddy of mine - who has a '96 stang gt - up to the ski hill (about 10 km on the highway to the hill turnoff, another 7 or so km up the dirt road after the turnoff). The roads were quite snowy. He was ahead of me after the first 3 km out of town, I was catching up on the twisty parts, but he lost me on the straights. By the time I reached the hill turnoff he was out of sight. About 4 km up the twisty, slippery, skihill road I caught up to him and passed him on the outside of a corner (he was struggling to get around the corner which also sloped steeply uphill, his tires were spinning like crazy and the rear end was fishtailing pretty badly) in a 4 wheel drift, shot past him and outdistanced him very quickly, made it up to the hill lodge about 2 minutes before he did. The point is, if that 2001 GT was anything like my buddy's, he would have wasted me on the acceleration as well(the other point is that Civics are much better as a rally-style car than Mustangs, meaning the balance between the speed and handling is much better), but the fact is: I beat him, just barely, but nevertheless he got beaten by a car "made for going to the grocery store", perhaps the Mustang was suffering from environmental conditions, perhaps there was something wrong with it, perhaps it wasn't a real 2001 GT, perhaps...perhaps...well you get the picture...fact remains, and I'll always think the new GT is slow.

    If you know how to drive it, a Civic can accelerate more quickly than one would expect: case and point: the '90 Civic SI is supposed to accelerate from 0-100 km/h in 13 seconds under normal environmental conditions, well I've gone from 0-100km/h in as quickly as 9 seconds under ideal conditions (maybe even 8, but we weren't positive about the accuracy of that time). That's not great, but it just shows what you can do with a "little econo-shitbox" if you know what you're doing.

    What does it matter if the Silverado SS Concept is a Concept?, you and I both know that it's going to be released soon (particularly since the arrival of the SVT Lightning). And you're avoiding the subject, which is that comparing that truck to the mustang and Lightning was (although still a very bad comparison) a better comparison than saying the Civic SI is sad because Ford makes a faster truck than it, the Mustang isn't sad because the Silverado SS is faster than it, so why would it work vise versa for a car that is designed more for all around sportiness than for fast strip times?

    Huh? well that comment about "Ford did not make the SVT cobra for track times, they made....." came from out of nowhere.

    Well, you agree that the Civic SI is for getting groceries right? Well the GT is to the SVT Cobra, what the SI is to the Type-R, therefore one can reasonably conclude that the GT is made for going to the grocery store as well. It's not very fast, it certainly doesn't handle well, the only other option aside from the grocery store is to cruise around in a car that looks sportier than it really is ("shh...don't want the chicks to know, maybe they won't notice...hehehehe"), which is a pathetic reason to buy a car. The hood scoop and side vents are what makes the mustang gt laughable, the least they could have done is make them look real, so it wouldn't be noticeable at anything more than a glance. The optional sport package for some Civics (mainly the Type-R) has a FUNCTIONING hood scoop, with the intake, exhaust, everything, and it's all Mugen. The Civic looks just fine not trying to pretend it's something it isn't.

    See, that could be why people like you just don't get it. American auto fans are ALWAYS complaining about the stickers, spoilers, body kits, "fart cannon" exhausts, etc. on imports and the kids that make them "all show, no go". In reality American manufacturers are doing the very same damn thing. While Japanese manufacturers are building their cars to perform well, and provide reliable, economical, performance, they are not adding anything that is not needed, just to make it look cooler or faster than it really is. You American auto fans see these cars and think "hmm, everybody says it's fast, the specs show it to be relatively quick, but it can't be, it doesn't look fast and it's small, therefore it can't be" note how a lot of people think the Impreza WRX is fast(which it is) and it comes with a FUNCTIONING hood scoop, but a car that goes almost as fast is "slow" (ie: S2000 .2 seconds slower 0-100) and yet on that "slow" car the only "fast" looking part on it is the overall body, the Skyline is another example - a lot of people (especially american auto fans) think it's slow, could it be possible that's because it resembles a sporty sedan?. When you look at American Manufacturers everything looks "fast" ie: production spoilers on slow cars, FAKE hoodscoops, racing stripes, Fake side skirts on some cars (Grand AM), hell a lot of people even think the Sunfire is fast, which is far from true, it may look fast, but truth is it performs about as well as the Civic CX. This is just speculation, and is in no way my precise opinion, I just consider it a possibility.

    Do American cars come "r1ced" from the factory? hmmm.......


    p.s. the Accord looks wwaaayyyyyy better than the Mustang, the 1988 - 1992 Civic body looked wwaayyyy better than many other vehicles (except from the back straight on), all that without any hoodscoop, though of course it's all subjective<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>.
     
  13. Re: Why ryce?

    HAHAHAHAHAHA stock 90 si beat a stang GT? my chevy lumina can beat a 99 si. and i would hope id get smoked by a gt, if not then ford #$%#ed up really bad somewhere
     
  14. Re: Why ryce?

    I'm sorry buddy, but a stock 1990 civic SI couldn't beat a mustang.
     
  15. Re: Why ryce?

    Strip times mean alot because it you take your car racing your most likely taking it drag racing because they just dont let people on pro roadways for racing and plus you more want your car set up to drag for street light duels.
     
  16. Re: Why ryce?

    LOLOLOLOLOLOL (not to you pinto) I absolutely agree with you! I love street light duels. Anyways, I find that bit about the civic stupid because my stock 86 5.0L grand prix with 250K km on the odometer rules over civics as well, even new ones. As for the stuff build for drag racing, the GP also handles amasing. My camaro even more so. Domestic companies haven't built performance cars that don't handle since the big block SS's and hemis of the late 60's. Camaro, Mustang, Lightning and even the new SS silverado both have suspensions designed to handle. People like good road feel, domestic markets have changed to people who prefer handling even if they drag race. G machines are becoming a majority. Pure drag cars are losing popularity.
     
  17. Re: Why ryce?

    oh yes, gear ratio... its made for fuel efficenty? really? Ford must have done a shitty job, considering the 5 speed gets better milage than the automatic!

    The old ones faster than the new ones? Even the old 5.0s are not as powerful as todays.

    The fact you beat your friend racing on snow filled roads only means one thing- His tires were worse than yours.

    The Silverado SS IS NOT BEING PRODUCED. Period. Its not 100% its being built, and even if it is, the numbers very easily change.

    Using your logic, a tiburon is to a tiburon GT, hence the tiburon GT is a speed deamon. WRONG LOGIC, dumbass. A base mustang is more powerful than the tiburon GT.

    Your logic on the skyline is wrong- plenty people think its fast, nobody judges it for being a sedan.

    Ford knows well about hood scoops, they just put a shaker hood scoop on the new Mach 1, and I dont know about you, but i would rather pay 10 dollars more and have a better looking car than 10 dollars less.
     
  18. Re: Why ryce?

    Wait, I finally belive your story. The mustangs lane was at a 30 degree upword slope and you were on a 15 degree downhill slope, thats pretty much the only way it was possible. It doesnt matter on how good od a shifter you are. You could get the best driver in the world to drive your car, and someone who just gets good reaction times and puts his foot to the floor in the mustang, and your car would still loose. Otherwise a good driver in your car could beat someone in a ferrari F50
     
  19. Re: Why ryce?

    The performance difference of a mustang gt in comparison to a Civic SI is FAR smaller than the difference between a Ferri F50 and a Civic SI. Face it, the Mustang GT is SLOW for the type of car it's meant to be.
     
  20. Re: Why ryce?

    Slow? you call 260 horsepower and 310 torque slow? What kind of idiot are you? Its very fast, and it is meant to be fast. If the GT is a grocery getter, what in hell is the v6 mustang? If a GT is as slow as you say it is with the power it puts out, your car should barely have enough power to move.
     
  21. Re: Why ryce?

    If the power doesn't get to the wheels the specs mean nothing. I call 260 hp (which by the way is much less than the '96 Mustang GT) and 310 lb/ft torque high specs, but slow considering they just say what the engine puts out, nothing about how fast the car is so nobody could really say whether or not the car is slow or fast just based on those specs (if you gave me performance times than what you said wouldn't sound so retarded).

    I'd consider a V6 mustang fodder for recycling into a lot of toasters.

    Again, the Type-R has much less power but is much faster in acceleration, high power specs do NOT necessarily make a car fast.

    I'm the kind of impulsive idiot that can outsmart just about anyone....go figure<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
     
  22. Re: Why ryce?

    Oh i see, so your civic Si gets every inch of power out to the wheels? The mustang gets power to the wheels very well, better than the Si, thank you very much.

    Woah... no way... the 96 GT puts out... 260 HORSEPOWER! Isnt that amazing?!?!?!

    That V6 is most likely faster than your car, so you might as well buy a bike and start pedaling.

    Your right about the impulsive idiot part.
     
  23. Re: Why ryce?

    Well sure the maybe the Mustang does get power to the wheels very well, but when it loses it still loses, no matter what kind of power it puts out.

    Actually the '96 GT puts out 330 bhp, or at least one that my buddy owned (the one I raced up to Phoenix) did when we put it on the dyno.

    If that V6 is faster, it doesn't matter in the least, cause it'll never be even remotely fast when it comes to tight cornering, doesn't matter how fast it is, if you beat it you beat it whether it has more power or not.

    I unashamedley admit I'm an impulsive idiot, have no problem with it, however you'd have no idea whether or not I am, as it does not show itself in posting, but rather in my actions, therefore unless you know me personally you could not possibly be in a position to confirm nor deny it. Idiocy bears no reflection on intellect, remember that!

    You however have yet to come out of the closet...<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
     
  24. #74 FORD PINTOS DONT SUCK, Nov 21, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  25. Re: Why ryce?

    How so? I was totally going through the corners faster, he was going faster in the straights, I'd say that's a pretty good sign of better handling.

    The '96 GT can be rated at 215hp all it likes, fact is, the one my buddy had was bone stock, and it produced 330hp at the wheels, we dynoed it, and that's what it produced, end of discussion.
     

Share This Page