Why ryce?

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

  1. Re: Why ryce?

    Ok smart one, show me the dyno sheet. The somehow show me the car is stock. Back up what you say. I could say my friend has a Toyota Echo dynoed at 500 horsepower at the wheels. But unless i back that up, it means jack shit.

    If you street race, you are just plain stupid, and street racing with turns? You will soon be a marker on the side of the road.
     
  2. Re: Why ryce?

    Oh, and another thing, why would the GT produce more than the 99 cobra?
     
  3. Re: Why ryce?

    HTFSIK? Don't ask why, I'll have as much an idea as you do, all I know is the dyno showed it at 330bhp (well 327 to be precise).
     
  4. Re: Why ryce?

    dyno sheet please. and show me it is stock. i want proof, and you dont have it.
     
  5. Re: Why ryce?

    Of course I don't F^@#!NG have it, that was over two years ago, I live in a different town now, and it wasn't even my car. Even though I kinda like mustangs I'm not going to keep a printout of the performance of someone else's car! And like I said before AS FAR AS I KNOW it was stock, meaning there were no apparent mods as far as I could tell, and according to the owner there were no mods.

    Anyway we're getting off the subject, the point is, I beat my buddy in a race to the ski hill lodge, his '96 mustang gt accelerated more quickly, but I beat him due to either: a)better driving skill b)better handling of the car or c)both factors. I'll opt for the handling as I'm not so over inflated as to consider myself a better driver. And, on the other hand I beat a 2001 mustang gt in straight-line acceleration due either to: a)better shifting and timing b)better vehicle performance or c)both. I'd say both on this one just because of the quick gear ratio, how slow the new GT seems to be, my ability to accelerate, and the possibly poor reflexes and shifting of the guy.
     
  6. Re: Why ryce?

    Your an idiot, show me somewhere that rates the 96 GT at 330 STOCK. It shouldnt be hard to find if its true.

    Second, if you beat your friend on the snow, that only means you have better tires than him. period.

    And your story of you beating a mustang GT is nearly impossible. It doesnt matter if you made absolutly perfect shifts every time, and second, your story isnt consistant. how could you be a better shifter if he was in an automatics. Unless you are a pro, chances are automatics will be faster than you shifting. And a 1990 civic Si is no way in hell faster than a 2001 GT. My friend beats similar cars easily and even he gets smoked by GTs.
     
  7. Re: Why ryce?

    you say he has a 330 hp at the wheels car, when it is not even over 200, and then you say you beat him with your R!CE burner. just shut the hell up, your stpidity is giving me a headache.
     
  8. Re: Why ryce?

    YOUR stupidity is giving me a bigger headache.

    Read what was written more thouroughly dumbass.

    A brief description of the main points you missed:

    He dynoed at 327bhp at the wheels. He accelerated more quickly than me on the highway. I was gaining on him in the corners, he outdistanced me on the straights to the point that he was out of sight once I reached the turnoff, once I turned off onto the skihill road I caught up to him about 4 km up, passed him on a corner cause I was able to hold my speed better because I had a more nimble and better handling car. I beat him up to the skihill. Now tell me how that could possibly be stupid?!?


    Perhaps you misunderstood, perhaps you thought the guy I raced straight line was in the same car, it wasn't, it was my family doctor who was in a 2001 Mustang GT, we were just goofing around on a quiet day in our little town after he pulled up beside me at an intersection.

    Now as for Texas 1: What I said earlier was NOT inconsistent, you just need to learn how to read, as I said, I WASN'T SURE IT MAY HAVE BEEN AN AUTOMATIC BUT I DON'T KNOW!!!! Given the fact that the GT is supposed to be a non-sporty version of the Mustang, what makes you think it's going to be fast?!? What, because it has a V8 in it??? I've seen some pretty slow V8's, because it has a horse in the front grille??? that horse has also been on the Mustang II, because it had a blue oval on the back??? ford has been known to be the source of some pretty slow cars.

    Oh, and it doesn't take much skill at all to shift faster and more smoothly than an automatic as
    1)automatics slip between gears quite often, in other words they have trouble finding the right gear, under heavy acceleration they can sometimes take up to 5 seconds to disengage the clutch, find the right gear, and re-engage the clutch.
    2)Automatics never have as good a gear ratio for acceleration as standards do, so unless you have a very high end racing automatic transmission, an automatic will never be able to accelerate as quickly as its standard counterpart, unless the driver can't shift worth shit.


    And you forget, if you know how to drive a Honda and are accustomed to its gear ratio, you can often accelerate much more quickly than the "official" 0-100 km/h time

    And Texas 1 - me beating my buddy had nothing to do with the tires, he had 1 season old studded Michelin Tiger Paws, while I had 3 season old Pacemarks designed for snow and mud, given that we were on pretty hardpacked snow, I seriously doubt that I had the advantage (in fact I know I didn't because I was sliding around and spinning tires a lot more than he was).

    Now before you go handing me any bullshit about how that makes my story inconsistent because I should not have been able to get better traction than him consider this - I didn't. If you've ever driven on BC logging roads you'd know that some corners are very tight and go uphill at the same time, making for very difficult passage in slippery conditions. The corner I passed him on, he had to slow down because he knew that if he had his momentum going, he'd probably slide right off into the ditch being in such a heavy car (at least I think - and hope - that's what was going through his mind), with such little weight on the driving tires. Now if you know that kind of corner then you know that you need to have alot of momentum in order to make it up, otherwise you're just going to struggle for traction. Hell I've even seen 4x4's spin the tires like crazy and slide back down because they were going too slow. Well, that's what I did, while he was struggling to get to the top at the apex of the turn, I saw enough room to go by him on the outside so as stated earlier: I tapped the brake, then flicked out and turned in so that I slid by him on the outside and cut in tight so that I could have enough momentum and gain enough traction to make it the rest of the way through the turn and up the hill. If I had slowed down as well, I doubt I would have been able to make it up that hill with the tires I had.


    So please, think these things through before coming up with stupid questions. ><A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/sad.gif"></A>


     
  9. Re: Why ryce?

    You said it was on snowy roads, that means that you had better tires. Anyway, he was probably trying to avoid any kind of drifting, while you on the other hand were acting like the jackass you normally are and was driving like a maniac not caring at all.


    And oh shit, where did this come from?
    "The Mustang GT, first off I did beat a 2001 (though as I mentioned - barely, and his was an automatic)
    No place in there did you say it COULD be an automatic.
    You are and idiot, the GT is not the slow version of the mustang, the V6 is. The GT can whoop your ass in and out. The V8 makes much more horsepower than your 4 banger, so you can shut the hell up.

    Ford has been the source of slow cars? Ford was there competing during the muscle car era with cars like the boss 302 and 429, while honda is famous for their like econo-boxes.

    You know bullshit about automatic times. Automatics shift very fast, even near redline. You have to be a very good driver to match these times.


    You have yet to prove to me that a stock 96 produces 330 at the wheels. I am waiting.
     
  10. Re: Why ryce?

    We both had winters, he had much better ones, um, both of us were drifting intentionally, but he's not a moron, he knew that his car was way to big and heavy to drift on that turn. I kept my momentum going, I didn't put him at risk, nor myself, and he came up to me once we were at the top to compliment me on my pass.
    You've never really raced have you? Otherwise you'd know that as long as you don't play dirty, it's all good and fun, we both enjoyed it.

    My mistake, I meant to say that it MIGHT have been an automatic, (still not sure I didn't say that, but I don't have time now to go back and check), and I believe I inferred later on that I didn't know. The GT is the non sporty version of the Mustang, just like the EX and SI are the non sporty versions of the Civic, the CX is the slowest version of the Civic (to my knowledge). Just because it has more power doesn't mean it's faster, remember it's almost twice the weight, and has just less than twice the power, but doesn't have the high ratio 5-speed gearbox, the high compression ratio, or the high redline.


    Honda is also famous for their 1.5 liter 1300-1500 hp engines (formula engines late musclecar era), and ford has been the source of the Pinto, festiva, and windstar. None of which have ever been able to even begin to compare to their Honda counterparts (Civic and Odyssey) so yeah, ford is a source of slower cars than Honda has been the source of.

    Production automatics do NOT shift fast, I've driven many automatics from many models from many manufacturers, they've rarely ever accelerated well. Find me one automatic transmission from a production car that's geared to accelerate. It doesn't take much skill at all to match production automatics.

    I admit, I might be wrong that a stock 96 produces 330bhp at the wheels, but my buddie's stang did (according to the dyno which was accurate, it's used for a racing series across the line - u.s. border in yankee terms) so it doesn't really matter whether or not it was supposed to, what matters is what I said before which is that his car had more power, and I beat him in a race (thru handling though not acceleration)

    Give me a mailing address, if I go back to my hometown soon and can get ahold of my buddy, and the results then I'll mail them to you.
     
  11. Re: Why ryce?

    Don't mess with Texas, when Ford was making those cars in teh 60s, Honda was making small efficient roadsters like the S500.

    In addition, the bikes that they made back then could whoop any Ford's ass. No to mention the fact that a stock Acura Type S RSX could perhaps match teh times of the Big Block Fords of days gone by.

     
  12. Re: Why ryce?

    First, stop with the damn tehs.

    That wasnt the time for small efficent roadsters, it was the time when muscle was big. You were looking for power and sound, not good gas mileage.

    You are comparing a modern car to a past car? Why not compare modern to modern, and anyway, it dosent matter, a 302 or 429 boss could kick the RSX's ass. Not to mention the current mustangs could school the RSX.
     
  13. Re: Why ryce?

    Don't mess, I'm sorry if I offended you with my typos. I guess that you, with your fabulous typing skills, never make such petty mistakes. However, your efforts may be better utilized by harassing such individuals as 94Formula who write even worse than myself.

    if you are going to ***** about my typos, then I can do the same about your continual use of foul language. You seem like a smart guy, why say stuff like "you know bullshit about automatic times."

    Oh, and if a 428 Cobra Jet can "beat" an RSX, prove it, give me the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.

    I'm not one of those people who thinks that a Civic can beat a Mustang for less $$; I realize that for straight-line performance it's near impossible to beat a RWD American stick-shifted V8.
     
  14. Re: Why ryce?

    Yes, and it would be nice if all people could realize that. It's the winding tracks that count (in real life, what are you more likely to come across in the event of a global catastrophe and you have to escape, Twisty roads or long straights?)
     
  15. Re: Why ryce?

    a 429 runs a 14.1 quarter mile.
     
  16. Re: Why ryce?

    Password Please, generally how fast a car is (except on straits) depends almost TOTALLY, in my experience, on the driver.

    Let's say that the RSX was better than a Mustang in the handling dept., if the Mustang driver was more skilled than the RSX, who would lose whom?

    On the other hand, if it was vice versa, then even the Mustang's power could not help it.

    (Understood from your post that the domestic cars don't handle as well as foreigns, sorry if I misunderstd).

     
  17. Re: Why ryce?

    Yes, that's true, it certainly takes driver skill, but with a good enough driver, you'll be able to do things in an NSX that you couldn't possibly do in a Viper, no matter how good you are different handling cars have different limits to which they can be pushed.
     
  18. Re: Why ryce?

    I have to say your idea about a global catastrophe and escaping amuses me. If its that big of a catastrophy, i dont care aobut roads, i am not manuvering around, i will floor it and get away reguardless of what i do to the car or how far offroad i will go. straight lines are the fastest way from pt A to pt B
     
  19. Re: Why ryce?

    Unless the straight line is through a lake and the road goes around the lake.
     
  20. Re: Why ryce?

    HAHA, I am not going to argue about this global catastropy stuff.

    And in general in the USA, speed is determined in a straight line. We are all about 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. In many parts of the world, speed is all about handling. That is why we watch drag racing while other parts of the world watch rallys. Its all personal preferance.
     
  21. Re: Why ryce?

    Don't look now, but Rally and LeMans are growing more popular than Drag racing and Nascar.

    The point of that idea was that you're better off using a vehicle that's pretty fast and has killer handling, than a vehicle that's really fast and can't handle worth shit. Which is more useful? Are you better off outrunning a train or turning off to the side? When street racing would you rather run through the semi that pulls up ahead of you, or avoid it alltogether? Would you rather stare at a straight open road mindlessly going 260km/h, or be challenged and think on your feet while driving 150km/h on a twisty road? I personally would rather go around the toddler that unexpectedly runs out into the street, than screech to a stop right on top of a brand new, bloody, speedbump. Cars don't need a high crash safety rating when they can avoid accidents altogether, yet Imports are at the cutting edge of crash safety anyways because some accidents you have absolutely no control over (yes I know, GM has some very innovative crash safety technology, but they are not the best).
     
  22. Re: Why ryce?

    Great, buy a car that has good handeling... JUST INCASE... that is a good argument.

    9 times out of 10 a cars handeling cannot avoid the accident. It is either unavoidable or the driver doesnt respond quick enough.
     
  23. Re: Why ryce?

    he is right about the accident. As for most street racing that i have seen its all drags anyway so whats it matter?
     
  24. Re: Why ryce?

    The thing is, when people in the USA go out to watch racing, they go to the strip, not some road course. In other countries its different. Its just the way it is. Hell, muscle cars had piss poor handling, but they are still some of the most popular cars for car collectors. Car companies build cars based on the needs of the area. In america, we want fast straight-line cars. We like top fuel dragsters... funny cars... pro stock cars...

    If i wanted a good handling car i would buy a Mini Cooper.
     
  25. Re: Why ryce?

    I would beg to differ, I've had 3 close calls that I avoided after somebody else F@CKED up, if I had been in a heavier or less responsive car, I would have been F@CKED.

    1)Easter Monday, 2002, coming back from Kelowna (pissed off because some guy in a White Ford F-350 ran into my right rear corner while I was waiting at a stop light, he took off, couldn't do anything about it) driving 120 km/h, had just passed 3 trucks that were driving insanely, but slow, came up to a fairly tight corner, went in close to center line, suddenly a Mustang with 3 people in it rounds the corner at about 160km/h, not good enough handling, going too wide, 1/2 on my side of road. I tapped the brakes then swerved out as he swerved in, narrowly missing him, I came to a stop on shoulder with the right side on gravel, Mustang starts sliding, then spins out of control, comes to a stop on other side of road, they start up again and continue on their merry way. Trucks pass, I continue as well. If I hadn't reacted, we would have certainly collided on the drivers side.

    2) January, 2002, Coming home from a long day's work (16 hours) followed by a 45 min (normally) commute home. Very slippery roads, had been snowing all day. I'm near home (rest of commute went just fine) on a straight stretch (60km/h zone) cruising along, suddenly have to slow down because van cuts me off, van going only 30km/h for quite a while, I get frustrated and decide to pass despite the slippery conditions (it was a dashed line afterall), pull out to pass, start accelerating, get up to 60km/h and about to overtake when suddenly (no turn signal) driver decides to turn left at the last second, he cuts me off, I see I'm not going to squeeze by, so I slam on the brakes and start sliding right toward the side of van going 60km/h (kid in middle seat right where I would hit), I release the brakes and turn in left quickly, transfer weight then turn sharply right, rear end slides out but only far enough for me to turn sharply enough to go around the rear of the van (so close that I could lick the taillight if my window was open), I narrowly avoid shooting across the road and going off by correcting myself, rear end regains traction for a second, squealing tires is quite audible, I manage to get my car to straighten out, I honk at the van driver (stupid tourists), and go home, rather distraught.

    3)Downtown Castlegar, (can't remember when) I have green light, begin going through, some @$$hole decides to run a red light at same speed, I'm headed right for his front end, only thing to do is pull handbrake, I do so then release and floor it so my rear end doesn't come around too far, narrowly avoid him, people at stoplight are looking at me amazed, nobody got the license plate number.

    In all of those situations my reaction time played a large part true, but if I had been in a heavier or not as responsive vehicle then both I and the other drivers would surely have been FU@KED.
    That's 3 times out of 4, (the guy in my rear end was the one that I did not avoid, and while I'm just sitting there waiting it's true that handling won't help worth shit.

    I think you completely missed the point of my argument, which was that handling is there for when you need it, I'd much rather have that, and the satisfaction of knowing that I can take on horrible driving conditions and still have control - that's part of what makes winter driving so fun, you have control over where you slide and how fast. I don't buy a car to win races, I buy a car for reliability, practicality, and performance which relates to sheer driving pleasure (and in the process it's good enough to win races anyway). I take far more pleasure accelerating in 4th gear at 120km/h out of a corner than just punching it and shifting at the right time in a straight line. People who buy for straight-line performance are not real drivers (IMO), they just want to compensate for their general lack of genetalial mass. And if you lived in a place with real roads, you would totally prefer a better handling car. So it's not "Just in case" (redneck) it's for far more important reasons.
     

Share This Page