Aahhh. Ok. That's good enough. Reps, only because of my laziness.
Printable View
Aahhh. Ok. That's good enough. Reps, only because of my laziness.
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..Quote:
Originally Posted by RWD164
I am pretty sure Alfa stopped bringing cars into the US in the early 90's. Not 30+ years ago. But also has nothing to do with a civic.
Lets all focus our hatred of civics onto paper. I know, I know, it is hard to do but thats what this thread was called for. And oh how I hate them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by japan4racing
Anybody seen the third gen Camaro parked to the couth of Buford Hwy with the bondo spoiler and taillights? ;)
Still has nothing to do with a civic
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Footefan52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Footefan52
they USED to test wrx's with evos, but after the years it was pointless....lol The sti is the evo's competition, and thats waht gets tested with the evos. The wrx gets tested with the fwd compacts. And a evo doesnt get classed with those cars, b/c its performs soo much better.
bingo!Quote:
Originally Posted by JITB
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!
and yes you did read something wrong, you only read the first half my sentence. this is what i said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Footefan52
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RWD164
you must not be talking about an sti, and i thought normal wrx's didnt even have turboes.... and especially not that high of psi. sti's push out 300 hp nearly if not a little more( depends on the year i guess). and stock civic si's do 160-190 depending on the year, wat r u smoking?Quote:
Originally Posted by green91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynasty_Four
dammit it says WRX!!! AND WRXES DO HAVE TURBOES!!
if civic drivers (not saying all are) weren't so god damn cocky about there cars no one would really bug them... but i drive a miata, and HATE street racing with a passion but ive put 2 of 3 civics in my rear view mirror because the driver wanted to be a show off and SUCKED @ driving his boosted, body kitted, neon under glow, riced out civic VS a practically bone stock slightly tuned 93 miata and a driver who knows what there doing = FAIL.
i say all good guy civic owners and everyone els rally together to eradicate this insidious plague we call "rice"
ok so he's not talking about the sti, so the normal ones have 224. which is still way more then a 20 horsepower difference
the normal impreza boxter engine that isnt turboes puts out, 170, which is right there with the SI's, so i dont know wtf he is talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynasty_Four
si is rated at 198hp at the flywheel
ms3 - 263hp
gti - 200hp
srt4 - 230hp
wrx - 224hp
rsx - 200hp
all around the same..
at the flywheel = crap at the wheels...Quote:
Originally Posted by JITB
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HypnoToad
I normally dont like you... lol but I FULLY agree on that ****... muscles cars nowadays that are being made arent ****. They dont deserve that title.Quote:
Originally Posted by quickdodgeŽ
What the fucc does this have to do with anything? I don't give a fucc who you like or dislike and if I'm one for you to dislike (for no apparent reason), so what? My comment(s) had nothing to do with you so stick to the topic. Later, QD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynasty_Four
Okay but civic si, 198hp crank, wrx = 224.. 26 hp difference. but then youe gotta consider AWD driveline loss!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynasty_Four
How is it in all these years on here you have only 500 posts but on the S2k forum in your first week you had well over 1,000? Thats what I wanna know...LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynasty_Four
lol i dont know, im on there more... its smaller and i can keep up with all the forums easier, i have been on here for a long time. but only recently started posting again...
since u have massive crazy rep send me like 1000 pointsQuote:
Originally Posted by Brett
And you apparently missed the part in my reply to JITB that said we are not talking stock cars here. Mainly because there is no reason to bash a stock civic. If someone put a turboback exhaust on the WRX and had it tuned it can see a 50 whp gain easily. But I am not here to defend the WRX. I am saying that riced out civics suck and there is nothing anyone can say to me to think otherwise, especially in a way where I have to decipher where periods have to be placed.Quote:
Originally Posted by green91
You really should not criticize my grammar if you are going to start a sentence with "and" and not using complete sentences. Oh yeah, grammar has 2 a's in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Footefan52
riced out anything sucks... ..But as easy as u can get 50hp out of the wrx, u can get power out of the others it would give similar results..Quote:
Originally Posted by Footefan52
I agree with this. I believe that The Fast and the Furious Ruined an entire generation of otherwise decent car guys. That movie came out and the body kits and exhuast market exploded. Also, these same people took Speed Channel and turned that programming into an ignorant pile of Sh-it. Pinks, Nopi Tunervision, and Unique Whips are NOT what cars are supposed to be about. Big deal, you can park the nose of a car against a wall and ruin as set of front tires doing a burnout. The people who get their jollies from this are the same people who, on Pinks complain their Transmission or Clutch is bad, but still do a big smoky burnout before a pass. God I hate Sped, I mean Speed Channel...Quote:
Originally Posted by MskunkM
Like I said man, I am not here is defend the WRX or my car (barely a WRX anymore). I am here to give anyone hell that drives a riced out civic (or a riced out car in general). I am an equal opportunity hater :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JITB
Quote:
Originally Posted by JITB
I know you aren't exactly a pro-honda guy, so im kinda surprised by your involvement in this thread, but i appreciate you being level headed unlike some of these guys. My point in this thread wasn't actually to bash hondas so much but to point out that a majority of people that make lame arguments against them often have the same short comings in their own vehicles that they boast
all the same at the flywheel maybe but definately not at the wheels. Stock srt4s dyno higher than 230.Quote:
Originally Posted by JITB
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by green91
true,but those cars are way more of a muscle car then a vette or viper and so forth.Quote:
Originally Posted by quickdodgeŽ
so their not the muscle cars of yester year,but its the closet thing we got now
The power that is "drained" from a supercharger is negligible. It is the same as running the air conditioning. When tuning a car it is important to run the car at maximum load to accomplish the optimal fuel maps. Therefor if your running a supercharger then it is getting the most smooth fuel map, which makes for bigger gains.Quote:
Originally Posted by RWD164
Quote:
Originally Posted by atlsrt44
yea yea, we know that... we dont want to get into that... But you know out of all, the wrx prob has the most drivetrain loss of all..
But im not defending hondas, iver never owned one. But, im the type that has a problem with the way the tuner thing has changed. I liked it better when it was people taking ****ty cars and making them into great cars. Now its more of buying a great car, and making it great? Not to say that we all dont want nice cars. But alot of cars dont impress me too much, not because of what it is. But just because it doesnt suprise me when a evo makes 700 hp on 40lbs of boost... i mean dam what motor wont make 700hp on 40lbs...lol. Just some cars im numb to their capabilities, and it doesnt interest me at all. And alot of people rather tell someone to not waste money on the car they want, rather than give props. I challenge anyone to go and research about a car that they hate or cant stand to see people put money into, and see if u dont find something interesting about it.
Wow i don't even know where to start with this statement. First off, a supercharger is WAY more parasitic than an a/c compressor. The amount of power needed to compress enough air to feed an engine is quite a bit more than the small amount of freon that is compressed. When tuning a car you want to tune a variety of conditions, part throttle and WOT both. Supercharging makes very little difference tuning wide and you certainly don't gain any power over turbo through the tuning methods for a s/c.Quote:
Originally Posted by Footefan52
But either way when tuning a car, SC or turbo, you place the car under max. load to ensure proper fuel mapping. I also know about WOT and partial throttle parameters which don't play as big of a role as: going up hill, AC on, etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by green91
So basically your argument is that s/c are better because its more difficult to fully load a turbo on the dyno? I do agree that dyno rollers don't completely simulate real load conditions (and this is only if its a large turbo) but it is very close, close enough to where 99% of tuners can add a certain percentage of fuel and be extremely accurate, not to mention road testing afterward. So i think thats pretty much a null argument
EH having a/c on and going up hill doesn't really make any difference tuning wise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Footefan52
well looks like everyone else in here is not to defend there civics.. but you are here to defend the hp of your neon aintcha..:DQuote:
Originally Posted by atlsrt44
well i've owned 3 civics, loved it, modified it, SOld Some, Bought Some more, a very on going side job, for gett'n that xtra $$$ and all the motors were making under 120, and took me places 4rom point A to B.. thats that.. and i do believe i'd riced the fucc out of one of them.. and @ that year.. i've sold it for about 9k and only spend like 4k in it .. .. :)