Because mustangs and v8s are symbolic of the muscle car era, whereas civics are small displacement and with boost or other work can also be very quick.
Because mustangs and v8s are symbolic of the muscle car era, whereas civics are small displacement and with boost or other work can also be very quick.
This should be a non-issue. A civic with a $2000 turbo kit on it is still slower than a mustang with $2000 in bolt-ons.Originally Posted by green91
Soooo.... stock for stock civics are slower, and comparable mod work they are slower still.
The civic should be "rivals" with something like a mazda 3 or a camry not a mustang
More than likely in a 1/4, but that's not the only form of racing. Take a mustang w/ $2000 worth of mods and a civic w/ $2000 worth of mods to the mountains
You can make a mustang stiff as all hell with 2k. I hate mustangs just as much as civics in some cases but still a superior car in my eyes. Nothing get much lower than a civic in my eyes though. Maybe a Kia Rio or somethingMore than likely in a 1/4, but that's not the only form of racing. Take a mustang w/ $2000 worth of mods and a civic w/ $2000 worth of mods to the mountains
IMO a wrx is hardly fast on its own. and more inline competition for the civic would be a corolla or sentra, which incidentally both have variants are are widely modified as well.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA this statement in itself discredits you as a whole
I think its also the fact that the civic was meant to be an econobox grocery getter and not some sort of sports car like most muscle cars.
Sports Car?!?!? Most muscle cars are as subtle as a brick and sporty they are not. Miata is a Sports car, MGB, Fiat 124, Mazda RX7/RX8, these are sports cars. Anything made by the Big 3 since 1965 can't be considered a sports car.
Saleen S7, Ford GT, i think the Dodge Viper is considered a sports car..i think, but i'd say for the most part thats true, but in the Big Three defense there really wasnt a market for sport cars in the states for a very long time
I call the Viper a death trap. The ford GT is considered an "Exotic" same goes with the S7
those are not muscle cars,the saleen is a supercar and the other 2 are sports cars along with the vette
muscle car is something like a charger SRT8 or Impala SS
thats what i saying, i think he said that US Big three didnt make sports cars after 1965
I disagree. They quit making true muscle cars around the early to mid 70s. Nothing in the 80s or above is a muscle car. Later, QD.
FOR MORE INFO, CLICK THE PIC!!!
Wasn't a market? Are you kidding? Alfa Romeo, Triumph, MG, Porsche, Fiat, Lancia, and Early BMW's were gobbled up becuase there was a huge demand. As far as the cars you listed none are sports cars, they are all too big. Sports cars are meant to be small engined, light little cars that handle well. The Viper is nearly the worst handling car ever built. The Saleen S7 is MASSIVE, and the Ford GT is a bonafide Supercar. As for the arguement for a Vette, once the Big V8s got crammed in, the sporty was gone. Early 6 cylinder Vettes and early Thunderbirds are nice, but they stopped in the early 60's.
And when were those sold last in the US? That is what my point was, and the quote i had. My fathers Triumph Tr-6 was a great sports car, but there havent been any sold, or most of those other companies, in the US for 30+ years because there was no market here for them. Muscle cars puched them out, then the fuel crisis and EPA regulations ect..
rather than splitting hairs, why not look at the point trying to be made. the point being that most muscle cars were designed to have a high horsepower and tq output and to be fast. that was not the intention for the civic. and to say that no big 3 cars since 65 are sports car is just a silly notion.
Follow up question. Do Civic people ever, and I do mean ever, consider a Supercharger instead of a Turbo? Superchargers work well with little motors and give considerable gain. A lot easier to install too...
Doesn't seem like it. It would be better though due to being belt driven. Although I have seen a supercharged s2000. That would sound cooler too cause you could put a quiet exhaust on it and then only hear the whine of the charger
yea my old tech at honda had a super charged civic putting out like 300 very nicely made horsepower... im thinking about putting a supercharger on my S. very reliable and easily can get into the 320 whp range...
IMO superchargers, especially on small motors are a waste, they have so much parasitic draw just to power the blower. also alot of blowers on civics are difficult to intercool. turbos on the other hand when sized properly can easily out power a blower in terms of air flow, air charge temp (lower), whp, and even power delivery.
Not True at all. Look up Judson Superchargers they make many superchargers for small bore motors. Or you could use a 2 Stage blower and they are quite efficient. Truth is, Superchargers are better for small engines. Period.
im still going to disagree with you for the sheer fact that you are having a draw on the engine to produce power. a portion of the increased power from the blower is being forced to power itself. turbos utilize existing exhaust flow and thermal expansion but require no additional load to power itself. sure you can compare x to a ## whatever.
Fair Point, but small bore motors (Under 2.5L) tend to be a bit laggy with any real boost/big turbo. Sure a small turbo on a small motor is Ok, but a small supercharger will give power from nearly idle to the redline, where turbos need to spool and the less exhaust (small bore) the longer the spool time, the more lag. I am simply wondering why people do not supercharge more, I am not here to nit pick the finite details of forced induction. You want that arguement, create an new thread...
and almost forgat one of the few FWD sportscars the daytona iroc r/t
Uhm how so? The civic is hondas compact sedan, the camry is a direct competitor for the accord.
Uhm cause you said that the WRX is a competitor for the civic. Not the case what so ever.
wrx's are classed with all the other sport compacts, it has the awd over them.. but its still a sport compact. Gti-Civic Si-mazdaspeed3-wrx-TC-rsx-srt4. I man if you compare all those cars they are in the same class performance wise... to me it just sounds like your close minded on your competition, and people like you are the ones who make people want to spend money on econoboxes!
Another one that makes me laugh. I look at competition as one thing being competitive with another. Example: The Avalanche and the Red Wings. Both good teams and always close games. <--- competitive. A civic racing a wrx is not competition. If your definition of competition is both cars finishing the race then yeah but not in the same timeframe.
Oh and the whole TC thing made me lol a little, and then I realized that this was a serious thread and then I died a little inside
i mean if your not gonna respond with anything serious, other than silly/witty idiotic comebacks, than ur not worth responding. i mean if u look up any article done by respected car testers, you will see that the wrx is tested with those cars. And as i found, it never came out on top, besides in the 0-60 which is obvious..but barely. And even the 08 was rated behind the ms3. the wrx. the wrx only sits high and mighty on the forums, it is a great car. But its really classed with those compacts....you should know this..u drive the car.
I know the stock test results and as someone that reequents the forums you should know that there are not that may stock WRXs around. With a simple exhaust swap and a tune they can net over a 50 whp gain. I am not saying that my car is the best car there is but in all reality it is misclassed. Also most of the mags. also test the wrx in with the evo. Would you class an evo with the rest of these cars?
Edit: And also this thread was not really about stock civics and we all know that. There is nothing wrong with stock civics. Hell I would drive one cause they get 40 miles to the gallon and my car gets 18.
bingo!
foote: you do realize that civic si & wrx are only about 20hp difference right.. stock for stock. the civic does it with a little higher compression and variable valve timing. wrx does it with nearly 14lbs of boost!
Please show me where i said it was a competitor, i cant find it.
I may have read this wrong but your grammer is also something to modify
and yes you did read something wrong, you only read the first half my sentence. this is what i said:
IMO a wrx is hardly fast on its own. and more inline competition for the civic would be a corolla or sentra, which incidentally both have variants are are widely modified as well.
i chose a civic bc they are reliable, great on gas, look decent, drive great, fun to fix up, and great for commuting to college.
Last edited by SiFOSHO; 04-23-2008 at 08:28 PM.
FL
yeauh really aint nothing wrong with a civic. thats all these country rednecks say is o you got a rice burner. well in all reality 4 cyliders aint no hoes. i mean what is it now days all them country rednecks got for their jacked up trucks. www.theskyisthelimitforrednecksandbeer.com. sorry just getting carried away,
Was there an order these words were supposed to be put into?
Dude, Can we get some foot notes as to how it got this far? I'm not backtracking....
K series 626. That's right. It's got a K in it.
The just of it is that civics are still gay unless in stock form and everyone is still trying to defend theirs.
Aahhh. Ok. That's good enough. Reps, only because of my laziness.
K series 626. That's right. It's got a K in it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
